Learning sparse causal models is not NP-hard

Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence - Proceedings of the 29th Conference, UAI 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 172-181

  Claassen, Tom ^a   Mooij, Joris M ^a   Heskes, Tom ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAUSAL MODEL; HARDNESS RESULT; INDEPENDENCE TESTS; LATENT VARIABLE; NODE DEGREE; SELECTION BIAS; SOUND AND COMPLETE; SPARSE GRAPHS;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84888174793     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. D. Chickering. Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(3): 507-554, 2002.
2. D. Chickering, D. Heckerman, and C. Meek. Large-sample learning of Bayesian networks is NP-hard. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 5: 1287-1330, December 2004.
3. T. Claassen and T. Heskes. A logical characterization of constraint-based causal discovery. In Proc. of the 27th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 135-144, 2011.
4. T. Claassen, J. Mooij, and T. Heskes. Proof supplement to Learning sparse causal models is not NP-hard. Technical report, Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, 2013. http://www.cs.ru.nl/~tomc/docs/NPHardSup.pdf.
5. D. Colombo, M. Maathuis, M. Kalisch, and T. Richardson. Learning high-dimensional DAGs with latent and selection variables. The Annals of Statistics, 40(1): 294-321, 2012.
6. G. Cooper. The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artificial Intelligence, (42): 393-405, 1990.
7. J. Cussens. Bayesian network learning with cutting planes. In Proc. of the 27th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 153-160. AUAI Press, 2011.
8. R. Evans and T. Richardson. Maximum likelihood fitting of acyclic directed mixed graphs to binary data. In Proc. of the 26th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 177-184, 2010.
9. M. Garey and D. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Co., 1979.
10. O. Goldreich. Computational Complexity: A Conceptual Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
11. D. Koller and N. Friedman. Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques. The MIT Press, 2009.
12. D. Margaritis and S. Thrun. Bayesian network induction via local neighborhoods. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, pages 505-511, 1999.
13. J. Pearl. Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
14. J. Pearl and T. Verma. A theory of inferred causation. In Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the Second Int. Conf., pages 441-452, 1991.
15. T. Richardson and P. Spirtes. Ancestral graph Markov models. Ann. Stat., 30(4): 962-1030, 2002.
16. P. Spirtes, C. Meek, and T. Richardson. An algorithm for causal inference in the presence of latent variables and selection bias. In Computation, Causation, and Discovery, pages 211-252. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1999.
17. P. Spirtes, C. Glymour, and R. Scheines. Causation, Prediction, and Search. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd edition, 2000.
18. J. Tian, A. Paz, and J. Pearl. Finding minimal d-separators. Technical Report R-254, UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory, 1998.
19. C. Yuan and B. Malone. An improved admissible heuristic for learning optimal Bayesian networks. In Proc. of the 28th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 924-933, Corvallis, Oregon, 2012. AUAI Press.
20. J. Zhang. On the completeness of orientation rules for causal discovery in the presence of latent confounders and selection bias. Artificial Intelligence, 172(16-17): 1873-1896, 2008.