← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Federated Causal Discovery from Heterogeneous Data

Loka Li, Ignavier Ng, Gongxu Luo, Biwei Huang, Guangyi Chen, Tongliang Liu, Bin Gu, Kun Zhang

causal reasoningCausal DiscoveryStructure LearningFederated LearningHeterogeneous Data
45.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
49.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.35)
38.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — In this paper, we propose a novel federated causal discovery method attempting to accommodate arbitrary causal models and heterogeneous data.

Abstract

Conventional causal discovery methods rely on centralized data, which is inconsistent with the decentralized nature of data in many real-world situations. This discrepancy has motivated the development of federated causal discovery (FCD) approaches. However, existing FCD methods may be limited by their potentially restrictive assumptions of identifiable functional causal models or homogeneous data distributions, narrowing their applicability in diverse scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel FCD method attempting to accommodate arbitrary causal models and heterogeneous data. We first utilize a surrogate variable corresponding to the client index to account for the data heterogeneity across different clients. We then develop a federated conditional independence test (FCIT) for causal skeleton discovery and establish a federated independent change principle (FICP) to determine causal directions. These approaches involve constructing summary statistics as a proxy of the raw data to protect data privacy. Owing to the nonparametric properties, FCIT and FICP make no assumption about particular functional forms, thereby facilitating the handling of arbitrary causal models. We conduct extensive experiments on synthetic and real datasets to show the efficacy of our method. The code is available at https://github.com/lokali/FedCDH.git.

Author context

Most prolific author: 35 submissions (credibility 0.05).

Delta if applied: -3.9 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 40 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 47% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 40)