arXiv subjects

Dominik Janzing

Publications and source records attributed to Dominik Janzing.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

A Unified Approach to Interpretable Causal Root Cause Attribution

Understanding why a target metric changes is a fundamental problem in data-driven decision making, beyond anomaly detection alone. We study root cause attribution for metric changes in complex e-commerce systems, focusing on trade-offs between interpretability, efficiency, and causal validity. As a starting point, we extend a metric-decomposition method into a recursive metric-tree framework for multi-level root cause analysis, but this relies on independence and decomposability assumptions that miss complex causal dependencies. In contrast, graphical causal models (GCMs) relax these assumptions and improve causal validity, at the cost of interpretability, higher computational and data demands, and potential attribution target misalignment. Through real-world applications, mathematical proofs, and simulations, we characterize the fundamental sources of these trade-offs. Guided by these insights, we propose a unified, causally informed attribution approach that integrates structural causal information into the metric-tree decomposition framework and corrects key sources of misalignment in GCM-based causal attributions, substantially improving causal validity while preserving interpretability and fast computation. Analytical proofs and simulations demonstrate that the proposed approach produces more accurate root cause attributions, and we also present a real-world application.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Falsifying Causal Graphs With Outlier Events

True causal relationships are rarely known, and inferring causal graphs from data is hard. A fundamental challenge is how to assess whether a given causal graph is good in the absence of a ground truth. We propose falsifying candidate causal graphs based on whether they can explain the propagation of an outlier event. Our approach leverages a key principle: weak outliers rarely cause strong ones. While this principle has previously been used in root cause analysis to identify root causes without prior knowledge of the graph, we turn it on its head and use it to falsify candidate causal graphs whose implied outlier propagation is inconsistent with the data. To this end, we present the first statistical tests for the hypothesis that a candidate graph is the true causal graph, and show they have false positive control, power guarantees against incorrect causal graphs, and can operate with a single outlier sample.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Graphical Causal Reasoning for Root Cause Analysis in Cloud Networks

Cloud-computing relies on large-scale networks which are inherently complex systems. In this paper, we present a novel approach to root cause analysis (RCA) of cloud network incidents, leveraging graph-based causal discovery techniques. Our method addresses the limitations of rule-based automation by introducing a spatiotemporal grouping strategy and an automation ontology to reduce the dimensionality of the problem. We construct a causal graph from binary time series data using bivariate Granger causality and conditional independence tests. For inference, we introduce a probabilistic method that assigns edge-specific conditional probabilities as a function of time lag, allowing for interpretable, time-aware root cause scoring via causal graph traversal. We evaluated the system using a labeled dataset of 35 production incidents from a major cloud provider. The model successfully recalled the correct root cause in 85.7% of incidents and produced an exact match in 74.3%. In production, the deployed system has been used in over 800 real-world incidents, with positive qualitative feedback from network engineers. These results highlight the practicality of a data-driven, causal approach to RCA in dynamic and large-scale operational environments.

cs.NI↗

arXiv2026

NetCause: Counterfactual Learning for Root Cause Analysis in Large-Scale Networks

Can a learned model capture how faults propagate through a large-scale network and use this knowledge to causally attribute customer impact to its underlying root cause? Existing root cause analysis techniques often rely on static rules, correlation heuristics, or topology-local reasoning, which struggle to generalize in dynamic environments where faults propagate across complex physical and logical dependencies. We present NetCause, a self-supervised learning-based framework that models network incidents as graph-temporal processes and uses counterfactual simulation to rank candidate root causes. This approach produces an interpretable ranking of root cause hypotheses and integrates naturally with operator-defined mitigation and remediation actions. We train the model on over 1,500 incidents collected over six months from a leading cloud provider's production network and evaluate it on 31 expert-labeled incidents. NetCause consistently improves root cause ranking quality in the regime most relevant to operational decision-making, achieving a 16.1% accuracy improvement over a rule-based heuristic baseline. While training is computationally intensive, inference is lightweight, requiring only seconds of GPU runtime per incident (well below typical telemetry collection latencies).

cs.NI↗

arXiv2026

Measuring Semantic Progress in Multi-turn Dialogue via Information Gain

Evaluating multi-turn dialogue is challenging because quality emerges across turns rather than within individual responses. We focus on a key dimension of information-seeking dialogue: semantic progress, defined as the accumulation of new, question-relevant, and non-redundant information over the course of a conversation. We formalize semantic progress as question-conditioned uncertainty reduction and introduce an information-theoretic metric that approximates it in embedding space. Our main estimator uses a tractable Gaussian formulation with closed-form updates, while a complementary maximum-entropy argument shows why log-determinant structure arises more broadly when only second-order embedding information is retained. This formulation yields desirable theoretical properties, including monotonicity, additive decomposition of total information gain across turns, and diminishing returns for redundant evidence. Unlike LLM-as-a-judge approaches, our metric requires no autoregressive inference at evaluation time and is fully reproducible for a fixed embedding model. Experiments on MT-Bench, Chatbot Arena, and UltraFeedback show that the proposed metric achieves competitive agreement with human judgments despite targeting only semantic progress, with improved alignment on MT-Bench and UltraFeedback compared to several LLM-based judges. Notably, the method remains effective with lightweight embedding models under CPU-only execution, indicating that semantic progress can be captured without reliance on large model capacity.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Formalizing and falsifying causal pathways of rare events

Building on recent formalizations of root cause analysis for rare events (``outliers'') in structural equation models, we propose a formal definition of a causal pathway and discuss its testable implications. We identify conditions under which these implications depend only on a causal abstraction defined by the pathway of rare events, rather than on the full causal graph of the underlying system. Accordingly, we introduce an abstraction of causal structure to pathways of rare events that bridges simple verbal causal explanations and detailed causal modeling.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Bivariate Causal Statements Based on Mutual Compatibility

For many real-world systems, causal ground truth is difficult to obtain, making claims about causal effects hard to assess. We develop methods for evaluating collections of $\binom{n}{2}$ bivariate causal statements over a set of $n$ variables. In the setting of acyclic linear statements, any such collection can be extended to a unique multivariate causal model, but we argue that this induced model is implausible if it imposes substantial additional confounding to explain observed correlations. We introduce a compatibility score that quantifies this notion of plausibility, notably without relying on the faithfulness assumption. Additionally, we define an incompatibility score for purely graphical bivariate causal statements, based on global consistency constraints that are derived from acyclicity and faithfulness assumptions. We give theoretical and empirical evidence that both scores can successfully distinguish correct from incorrect causal statements in generic settings. Moreover, we demonstrate the practical applicability of our methods by analyzing causal claims made by large language models. Our work aims to provide a foundation for assessing the reliability of causal information derived from human experts or artificial intelligence in settings where alternative forms of validation are unavailable.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

IV Co-Scientist: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Causal Instrumental Variable Discovery

In the presence of confounding between an endogenous variable and the outcome, instrumental variables (IVs) are used to isolate the causal effect of the endogenous variable. Identifying valid instruments requires interdisciplinary knowledge, creativity, and contextual understanding, making it a non-trivial task. In this paper, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can aid in this task. We perform a two-stage evaluation framework. First, we test whether LLMs can recover well-established instruments from the literature, assessing their ability to replicate standard reasoning. Second, we evaluate whether LLMs can identify and avoid instruments that have been empirically or theoretically discredited. Building on these results, we introduce IV Co-Scientist, a multi-agent system that proposes, critiques, and refines IVs for a given treatment-outcome pair. We also introduce a statistical test to contextualize consistency in the absence of ground truth. Our results show the potential of LLMs to discover valid instrumental variables from a large observational database.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

From Guess2Graph: When and How Can Unreliable Experts Safely Boost Causal Discovery in Finite Samples?

Causal discovery algorithms often perform poorly with limited samples. While integrating expert knowledge (including from LLMs) as constraints promises to improve performance, guarantees for existing methods require perfect predictions or uncertainty estimates, making them unreliable for practical use. We propose the Guess2Graph (G2G) framework, which uses expert guesses to guide the sequence of statistical tests rather than replacing them. This maintains statistical consistency while enabling performance improvements. We develop two instantiations of G2G: PC-Guess, which augments the PC algorithm, and gPC-Guess, a learning-augmented variant designed to better leverage high-quality expert input. Theoretically, both preserve correctness regardless of expert error, with gPC-Guess provably outperforming its non-augmented counterpart in finite samples when experts are "better than random." Empirically, both show monotonic improvement with expert accuracy, with gPC-Guess achieving significantly stronger gains.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Root Cause Analysis of Outliers in Unknown Cyclic Graphs

We study the propagation of outliers in cyclic causal graphs with linear structural equations, tracing them back to one or several "root cause" nodes. We show that it is possible to identify a short list of potential root causes provided that the perturbation is sufficiently strong and propagates according to the same structural equations as in the normal mode. This shortlist consists of the true root causes together with those of its parents lying on a cycle with the root cause. Notably, our method does not require prior knowledge of the causal graph and yields encouraging results on simulated data and real data from biology and cloud computing.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

On Different Notions of Redundancy in Conditional-Independence-Based Discovery of Graphical Models

Conditional-independence-based discovery uses statistical tests to identify a graphical model that represents the independence structure of variables in a dataset. These tests, however, can be unreliable, and algorithms are sensitive to errors and violated assumptions. Often, there are tests that were not used in the construction of the graph. In this work, we show that these redundant tests have the potential to detect or sometimes correct errors in the learned model. But we further show that not all tests contain this additional information and that such redundant tests have to be applied with care. Precisely, we argue that the conditional (in)dependence statements that hold for every probability distribution are unlikely to detect and correct errors - in contrast to those that follow only from graphical assumptions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Toward Universal Laws of Outlier Propagation

When a variety of anomalous features motivate flagging different samples as outliers, Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT) offers a principled way to unify them in terms of a sample's randomness deficiency. Subject to the algorithmic Markov condition on a causal Bayesian network, we show that the randomness deficiency of a joint sample decomposes into a sum of randomness deficiencies at each causal mechanism. Consequently, anomalous observations can be attributed to their root causes, i.e., the mechanisms that behaved anomalously. As an extension of Levin's law of randomness conservation, we show that weak outliers cannot cause strong ones. We show how these information theoretic laws clarify our understanding of outlier detection and attribution, in the context of more specialized outlier scores from prior literature.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Causal vs. Anticausal merging of predictors

We study the differences arising from merging predictors in the causal and anticausal directions using the same data. In particular we study the asymmetries that arise in a simple model where we merge the predictors using one binary variable as target and two continuous variables as predictors. We use Causal Maximum Entropy (CMAXENT) as inductive bias to merge the predictors, however, we expect similar differences to hold also when we use other merging methods that take into account asymmetries between cause and effect. We show that if we observe all bivariate distributions, the CMAXENT solution reduces to a logistic regression in the causal direction and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) in the anticausal direction. Furthermore, we study how the decision boundaries of these two solutions differ whenever we observe only some of the bivariate distributions implications for Out-Of-Variable (OOV) generalisation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Cross-validating causal discovery via Leave-One-Variable-Out

We propose a new approach to falsify causal discovery algorithms without ground truth, which is based on testing the causal model on a variable pair excluded during learning the causal model. Specifically, given data on $X, Y, \boldsymbol{Z}=X, Y, Z_1,\dots,Z_k$, we apply the causal discovery algorithm separately to the 'leave-one-out' data sets $X, \boldsymbol{Z}$ and $Y, \boldsymbol{Z}$. We demonstrate that the two resulting causal models, in the form DAGs, ADMGs, CPDAGs or PAGs, often entail conclusions on the dependencies between $X$ and $Y$ and allow to estimate $\mathbb{E}(Y\mid X=x)$ without any joint observations of $X$ and $Y$, given only the leave-one-out datasets. This estimation is called "Leave-One-Variable-Out (LOVO)" prediction. Its error can be estimated since the joint distribution $P(X, Y)$ is available, and $X$ and $Y$ have only been omitted for the purpose of falsification. We present two variants of LOVO prediction: One graphical method, which is applicable to general causal discovery algorithms, and one version tailored towards algorithms relying on specific a priori assumptions, such as linear additive noise models. Simulations indicate that the LOVO prediction error is indeed correlated with the accuracy of the causal outputs, affirming the method's effectiveness.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Root Cause Analysis of Outliers with Missing Structural Knowledge

The goal of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is to explain why an anomaly occurred by identifying where the fault originated. Several recent works model the anomalous event as resulting from a change in the causal mechanism at the root cause, i.e., as a soft intervention. RCA is then the task of identifying which causal mechanism changed. In real-world applications, one often has either few or only a single sample from the post-intervention distribution: a severe limitation for most methods, which assume one knows or can estimate the distribution. However, even those that do not are statistically ill-posed due to the need to probe regression models in regions of low probability density. In this paper, we propose simple, efficient methods to overcome both difficulties in the case where there is a single root cause and the causal graph is a polytree. When one knows the causal graph, we give guarantees for a traversal algorithm that requires only marginal anomaly scores and does not depend on specifying an arbitrary anomaly score cut-off. When one does not know the causal graph, we show that the heuristic of identifying root causes as the variables with the highest marginal anomaly scores is causally justified. To this end, we prove that anomalies with small scores are unlikely to cause those with larger scores in polytrees and give upper bounds for the likelihood of causal pathways with non-monotonic anomaly scores.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

Multiply-Robust Causal Change Attribution

Comparing two samples of data, we observe a change in the distribution of an outcome variable. In the presence of multiple explanatory variables, how much of the change can be explained by each possible cause? We develop a new estimation strategy that, given a causal model, combines regression and re-weighting methods to quantify the contribution of each causal mechanism. Our proposed methodology is multiply robust, meaning that it still recovers the target parameter under partial misspecification. We prove that our estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. Moreover, it can be incorporated into existing frameworks for causal attribution, such as Shapley values, which will inherit the consistency and large-sample distribution properties. Our method demonstrates excellent performance in Monte Carlo simulations, and we show its usefulness in an empirical application. Our method is implemented as part of the Python library DoWhy (arXiv:2011.04216, arXiv:2206.06821).

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Assumption violations in causal discovery and the robustness of score matching

When domain knowledge is limited and experimentation is restricted by ethical, financial, or time constraints, practitioners turn to observational causal discovery methods to recover the causal structure, exploiting the statistical properties of their data. Because causal discovery without further assumptions is an ill-posed problem, each algorithm comes with its own set of usually untestable assumptions, some of which are hard to meet in real datasets. Motivated by these considerations, this paper extensively benchmarks the empirical performance of recent causal discovery methods on observational i.i.d. data generated under different background conditions, allowing for violations of the critical assumptions required by each selected approach. Our experimental findings show that score matching-based methods demonstrate surprising performance in the false positive and false negative rate of the inferred graph in these challenging scenarios, and we provide theoretical insights into their performance. This work is also the first effort to benchmark the stability of causal discovery algorithms with respect to the values of their hyperparameters. Finally, we hope this paper will set a new standard for the evaluation of causal discovery methods and can serve as an accessible entry point for practitioners interested in the field, highlighting the empirical implications of different algorithm choices.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Self-Compatibility: Evaluating Causal Discovery without Ground Truth

As causal ground truth is incredibly rare, causal discovery algorithms are commonly only evaluated on simulated data. This is concerning, given that simulations reflect preconceptions about generating processes regarding noise distributions, model classes, and more. In this work, we propose a novel method for falsifying the output of a causal discovery algorithm in the absence of ground truth. Our key insight is that while statistical learning seeks stability across subsets of data points, causal learning should seek stability across subsets of variables. Motivated by this insight, our method relies on a notion of compatibility between causal graphs learned on different subsets of variables. We prove that detecting incompatibilities can falsify wrongly inferred causal relations due to violation of assumptions or errors from finite sample effects. Although passing such compatibility tests is only a necessary criterion for good performance, we argue that it provides strong evidence for the causal models whenever compatibility entails strong implications for the joint distribution. We also demonstrate experimentally that detection of incompatibilities can aid in causal model selection.

cs.LG↗