Comparison of strategies for scalable causal discovery of latent variable models from mixed data
 1.1k Downloads
 2 Citations
Abstract
Modern technologies allow large, complex biomedical datasets to be collected from patient cohorts. These datasets are comprised of both continuous and categorical data (“Mixed Data”), and essential variables may be unobserved in this data due to the complex nature of biomedical phenomena. Causal inference algorithms can identify important relationships from biomedical data; however, handling the challenges of causal inference over mixed data with unmeasured confounders in a scalable way is still an open problem. Despite recent advances into causal discovery strategies that could potentially handle these challenges; individually, no study currently exists that comprehensively compares these approaches in this setting. In this paper, we present a comparative study that addresses this problem by comparing the accuracy and efficiency of different strategies in large, mixed datasets with latent confounders. We experiment with two extensions of the Fast Causal Inference algorithm: a maximum probability search procedure we recently developed to identify causal orientations more accurately, and a strategy which quickly eliminates unlikely adjacencies in order to achieve scalability to highdimensional data. We demonstrate that these methods significantly outperform the state of the art in the field by achieving both accurate edge orientations and tractable running time in simulation experiments on datasets with up to 500 variables. Finally, we demonstrate the usability of the best performing approach on real data by applying it to a biomedical dataset of HIVinfected individuals.
Keywords
Causal inference Latent variables Mixed data COPD HIV1 Introduction
Directed graphical causal models are an indispensable tool for predicting the outcomes of interventions on variables from purely observational datasets in domains ranging from economic to biological data. Biological datasets in particular present a challenge in that they typically include both categorical variables and continuous variables (“Mixed Data”) and that a number of causal variables may be unknown or impossible to measure. Though research in graphical causal models has been ongoing for several years [1, 9, 15, 21, 26] most algorithms on mixed data have been developed to learn only undirected graphs (not causal). Tur and Castelo [29] address the problem of learning mixed graphical models with very low sample size relative to the number of variables, under the assumption of a Conditional Gaussian (CG) model built upon the framework of [11]. In [2], the authors proposed a simplification of the CG model using a group lasso type sparsity penalty to work with highdimensional data. Both [13] and [7] study special cases of the CG model that significantly reduce the number of free parameters, enabling scalability to larger datasets. We chose to focus upon the model from [13] due to its efficiency and its success in prior applications to biological data [23]. Though structure learning algorithms for mixed data have focused on the undirected case, causal models can be learned on mixed data using constraintbased causal discovery algorithms such as the PC [26] algorithm, given that an independence test suitable for mixed variables is used.
One important assumption that many causal modeling algorithms rely upon is the causal sufficiency assumption [26], which states that there are no unmeasured variables (latent confounders) causally affecting at least two observed variables in the system, but in practice, it is unrealistic to assume that this is the case for any biological system. Another important factor in developing these algorithms is that the sizes of many biological datasets have expanded rapidly in the past years as a result of new technologies for highthroughput data collection. Thus, in order for causal inference algorithms to be practical, they need to be able to process big data efficiently [28].
The standard constraintbased causal discovery algorithm for latent variables has been the Fast Causal Inference (FCI) algorithm [27]. However, the word ”fast” in the name of the algorithm was meant to signify its superior speed compared to the state of the art at that time, and for highdimensional data the algorithm is not particularly fast nor highly accurate. There have been a number of proposed extensions to improve the speed and output accuracy of the algorithm. Really Fast Causal Inference (RFCI) is a modification of FCI that uses fewer independence tests than FCI to achieve a significant speedup at the cost of reduced information in the final output graph [5]. Anytime FCI is a modification of FCI that allows the algorithm to terminate FCI’s original conditional independence search early with the guarantee that no incorrect information will be presented, though the output may again be less informative than a full run of FCI [25].
Several other algorithms have been proposed to handle the presence of latent variables in causal discovery. The FindOneFactorClusters (FOFC) algorithm imposes restrictions on the graphical structure of the true causal model, thereby rendering it unsuitable to the general causal discovery problem [10]. Previously Overcomplete ICA was used to learn a causal ordering among the variables which allows an experimenter to learn experimental predictions; however, this approach is limited in scale and requires few latent variables relative to sample size [8]. In addition, none of these approaches are intended to deal with both continuous and categorical data simultaneously.
GFCI [14] is a new procedure that uses a parallelization of the Greedy Equivalence Search algorithm (GES) [18] as an initial step before running FCI; however, to apply this algorithm to mixed variables requires a hybrid scoring function which has not yet been formulated. Sokolova et al. [24] have developed a scoring function for mixed data that has unsuitable assumptions for categorical data. Their original algorithm, the Bayesian ConstraintBased Causal Discovery algorithm (BCCD) [3] uses a hybrid constraint and scorebased approach to perform causal search in the presence of latent variables. The extension of this work to handle both discrete and continuous variables uses a modification of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) score. However, this mixed score assumes monotonic relationships between the variables, and is only computationally feasible for relatively small datasets.
FCIStable is an adaptation of FCI that resolves the orderdependency of the algorithm and allows for straightforward parallelization [4]. This approach is now commonly used in place of the FCI algorithm, and thus we chose to use FCIStable as a baseline in this paper because this algorithm is more robust than the original FCI and can accommodate a suitable independence test for mixed data. In addition, we include the BCCD approach in our experiments, since it can handle mixed datasets, albeit with less scalability and with slightly restrictive assumptions.
We present a comparison of strategies for causal discovery in the presence of both latent variables and mixed data. One strategy utilizes a maximum probabilitybased search technique that was first applied to the PC algorithm [16]. In preliminary studies, this method, entitled PCMax, performed well in reference to the state of the art in causal discovery without latent variables. The approach examined here, called FCIMAX, uses a similar max search technique in the edge orientation portion of FCI to determine which conditioning sets of variables are most likely to provide correct conditional independence facts. It also utilizes the foundation of FCI to extend PCMax to the latent variable case. Though this maximum probability procedure improves the accuracy of the causal orientations of the FCI algorithm, it requires significantly more independence tests, thereby reducing the scalability of the algorithm even further. To combat this, we employed a preprocessing technique suitable for mixed data types called Mixed Graphical Models (MGM) [23], an improvement over [13], to quickly eliminate unlikely edges in our output causal graph. MGM helps learn the correct undirected skeleton before orienting edges using our new conditional independence tests with FCI.

We present and compare four new strategies to learn causal graphs over mixed data types with latent variables: FCIMAX, MGMFCIMAX, MGMFCI, and MGMCFCI (Sect. 3).

We provide optimizations and parallelization of the FCIMAX algorithm to further improve performance (Sect. 3.3).

We present an extensive experimental evaluation of these algorithms on a variety of simulated datasets against the baseline FCI algorithm and against BCCD (Sects. 4 and 5)

We demonstrate an application of our approach to a real biological dataset with latent confounders (Sect. 5.3).
2 Background and assumptions
Much of the terminology and assumptions of this work stem from those mentioned in [26], and we refer the reader to that work and Online Resource 1 for a detailed description. Here, we describe the original state of the art algorithm for causal discovery in the presence of latent variables: Fast Causal Inference (FCI) and the output of the algorithm, a Partial Ancestral Graph (PAG).
2.1 Fast Causal Inference
We originally developed FCI, which learns a causal PAG from data that may include latent variables [27]. The algorithm proceeds by using conditional independence tests akin to our PC algorithm [26] to quickly uncover an undirected skeleton of the true output graph, and subsequently colliders are oriented in the same manner as the original PC algorithm. In order to achieve correctness in the causally insufficient case (the case when latent variables are present), the algorithm must then further test some conditioning sets among nonadjacent variables. This is due to the fact that when the causal sufficiency assumption holds, if two variables are conditionally independent then they are conditionally independent given some subset of their adjacencies. However, in the causally insufficient case this no longer holds. This phase is referred to as the Possible DSep phase, as the variables that may be in a separating set for a given pair of variables is characterized as the Possible DSep set. Finally, all edges are reoriented to have both circle endpoints, and then orientation rules are applied as given by Zhang [30].
For robustness, we use the stable version of this algorithm (FCIStable). This version alters the undirected skeleton search at the onset of the algorithm to erase the orderdependency of the FCI algorithm. This is done by deleting edges only after all independence tests at the current conditioning set size have been performed. Henceforth, for simplicity we use the label "FCI" to mean the FCIStable algorithm.
Conservative FCI (CFCI) [17] is a modification of FCI that assumes a weaker version of faithfulness called adjacencyfaithfulness. The algorithm performs extra independence tests for each potential unshielded collider (A–B–C) to determine whether or not the variable B appears in all sets that separate A and C or none of the sets that separate A and C. In the first case, the algorithm orients as a noncollider, whereas in the second case the algorithm orients as a collider. If B appears in some separating sets but not others, the algorithms marks the collider as unfaithful and determines that no information can be extracted from the data. In practice, CFCI tends to give more reliable output at the expense of predicted colliders.
2.2 Partial Ancestral Graph
A PAG is the representation of the output of the FCI algorithm, and it is a causal graph suitable for situations in which latent variables may be present. This type of graph consists of three different types of endpoints: (o , >, −), and each edge here represents ancestral relationships between the nodes of the graph. \(\hbox {A} \rightarrow \hbox {B}\) denotes that A is an ancestor of B, and \(\hbox {A} \leftrightarrow \hbox {B}\) denotes that there is a latent variable causing both A and B. The circular endpoint denotes uncertainty about the correct causal endpoint, e.g., A o\(\rightarrow \) B could be \(\hbox {A} \rightarrow \hbox {B}\) or \(\hbox {A} \leftrightarrow \hbox {B}\) in the true graph, and thus the only certain knowledge from this orientation is that B is not an ancestor of A. We again refer the reader to [26] for a thorough theoretical grounding in these concepts.
3 Methods
3.1 Fast Causal InferenceMax (FCIMAX)
Fast Causal InferenceMax (FCIMAX) is a new modification of FCI that improves causal orientations. During the first collider orientation phase of FCI, the algorithm orients an unshielded collider (X—Y—Z) by determining whether Y does not appear in the conditioning set that renders X and Z conditionally independent (defined as the ”separating set” of X and Z). The FCI algorithm does this by simply using the first separating set that it finds during the adjacency search as the true separating set of X and Z. On the other hand, FCIMAX performs a conditional independence test on all possible subsets of the adjacencies of X and Z and uses the one with the largest p value in its conditional independence test as the true separating set. The intuition for this method is that the conditioning set with the largest p value represents the set least likely to imply dependence since likelihood for dependence falls off monotonically with increasing p value. [16] Next, the algorithm runs the Possible DSep stage as normal, and uses the max technique again in order to orient unshielded colliders following this stage. Finally, the other orientation rules are applied as usually done in FCI.
3.2 Independence test for mixed data
For both of the Fast Causal Inference algorithms, a reliable conditional independence test is necessary for proper output. For the mixed data in this study, we had developed a new conditional independence test based upon linear and logistic regressions [22]. First, all discrete variables are transformed into several binary indicator variables, one for each category of the original discrete variable. Then, to test the independence of two continuous variables X and Y, given a conditioning set S, we perform a linear regression of X onto Y and S, and we perform a t test on the coefficient of Y in this regression. If the p value of this test is less than a specified threshold \(\alpha \), we reject the null hypothesis of zero partial correlation between X and Y and determine that X and Y are conditionally dependent given S. Note that in this situation S may contain both continuous and categorical variables and for the categorical variables, the aforementioned binary indicator variables are used as the predictors. Alternatively, if X or Y is a categorical variable, then we utilize a likelihood ratio test between logistic regression models including the conditioning set S as predictors (null model) and without the conditioning set as predictors.
3.3 Parallelization and optimization
In the past, causal learning algorithms have not scaled well to the challenges of Big Data, with few exceptions [18]. In this section, we discuss parallelization and optimizations for FCIMAX to render a more realistic runtime on highdimensional data. Since FCIbased algorithms use the PC adjacency search to find an undirected skeleton, this search was implemented in parallel using the technique given by [12] without modification. Unfortunately, parallelizing this portion alone is not enough to even equal the runtime of the FCI algorithm due to the extra conditional independence tests necessary to find the maximum p value conditioning set. Thus, for FCIMAX, we parallelize the collider orientation phase as well, by utilizing a scheme in which each thread was given a job requiring a similar amount of independence tests, computed based upon the number of edges adjacent to the nodes involved in the current collider.
3.4 Mixed Graphical Models
Experimental orientation score
Predicted: A *o B  Predicted: A *> B  Predicted: A *– B  

True edge: A *o B  1 TP  If(\(\sim \)Ancestor(B,A)) 1 TP  If(Ancestor(B,A)) 1 TP 
Else, 1 FN  Else, 1 FP  
True edge: A *> B  \(\frac{1}{2}\) FP  1 TP  1 FP 
True edge: A *– B  \(\frac{1}{2}\) FN  1 FN  1 TP 
4 Experimental evaluation
In our evaluation, seven algorithms were tested on simulated datasets. These included the baseline FCIStable algorithm (referred to as FCI), FCIMAX, CFCI, FCI with the MGM skeleton (MGMFCI), FCIMAX with the MGM skeleton (MGMFCIMAX or MFM), CFCI with the MGM skeleton (MGMCFCI) and the Bayesian ConstraintBased Causal Discovery Algorithm (BCCD).
4.1 Evaluation metrics
The algorithms were evaluated based on each type of edge present in the graph: Edges between two continuous variables (CC), between a continuous and a discrete variable (CD), and between two discrete variables (DD). For each of these edge types the output PAG of the algorithms was compared to the true PAG that FCI would identify if it had a conditional independence oracle. Intuitively, this PAG is the best possible result that could come from using correct conditional independence information alone. The true PAG and the output PAG were compared in order to compute adjacency precision, adjacency recall, orientation precision, and orientation recall. Precision and recall refer to the standard definitions used in the machine learning literature, where a true positive adjacency refers to an edge that appears in both the estimated PAG and the true PAG regardless of its orientation, a false positive adjacency is an edge that appears only in the estimated PAG, and a false negative adjacency refers to an edge that only appears in the true PAG.
Orientation precision and recall are computed using the true positive, false positive, and false negative information in Table 1. This score is an attempt to quantify the amount of useful information a biologist would gain from examining the output PAG in terms of suggesting ancestral information between variables (as this is the information depicted in a PAG). This score utilizes a precision and recall measurement instead of a single numerical value. Note that this score is only computed on edges that appeared in both the true PAG and the estimated PAG. Thus when this score is presented it will always be accompanied by an adjacency score to separate the information gained from the adjacencies found by our algorithms versus the orientations found by our algorithms.
The main idea of the score is to award a true positive if the estimated PAG matches the output PAG; however, unlike a method such as Structural Hamming Distance, we examine the actual predicted endpoint to determine causal meaning. In particular, for an edge A *x B (where * is a wildcard for any endpoint), replacing “x” with the endpoint “>” is an implication of nonancestry from B to A (either because A causes B or because they are mediated by a latent variable). On the other hand, replacing “x” with the endpoint “” in the absence of selection bias is an implication of ancestry from B to A. Thus, in our score a false positive refers to an incorrect prediction of ancestry and a false negative is an incorrect prediction of nonancestry. When the ground truth PAG has a varying endpoint (“o”), the data generating DAG is consulted to determine ancestral relationships. When the predicted endpoint is “o” this is given a partially incorrect score unless the endpoint in the true PAG is also "o". In Table 1, Ancestor(A,B) is true if A is an ancestor of B in the data generating DAG, and \(\sim \) refers to a boolean NOT operation.
4.2 Datasets
4.2.1 Synthetic data
Our methods were tested on random graphs consisting of half continuous and half discrete variables. The number of nodes in these graphs included 50 and 500 variables. The discrete variables had three categories, and the graphs had varying edge densities. The 50 node networks had edge amounts normally distributed with a mean of 100 edges and a standard deviation of 30, while the 500 node networks had edge amounts normally distributed with a mean of 750 edges and a standard deviation of 200. The full statistics for all simulated graphs are given in Online Resource 1.
In order to produce a network with the potential for latent confounders each network had 5 or 20 variables selected to act as latent variables for the 50 and 500 node networks, respectively. Thus, these nodes were removed from the dataset used for the algorithmic search procedures. To ensure that these variables truly created confounding effects, only variables with at least two observed children were selected to become ”latent”. To convert this original DAG with latent variables to a Partial Ancestral Graph (PAG), an oracle for conditional independence relations from the underlying DAG along with the set of nodes from the DAG (excluding the latent variables) are given as input to the FCI algorithm, and the output is set as the true PAG for comparison [19].
Edge weights were drawn uniformly at random from the union of the regions \(\left[ 1.5,.5\right] \) and \(\left[ .5,1.5\right] \). For continuouscontinuous (CC) edges, the edge parameter is equal to the drawn weight. For continuousdiscrete (CD) edges, a vector of 3 values are drawn uniformly from \(\left[ 0,1\right] \), and these values are scaled such that they sum to 0 and shifted so that the largest edge parameter is equal to the original drawn weight. For discretediscrete (DD) edges, we use the same method as for CD edges, except that we use three permutations of the original vector to fill all 3 rows of the matrix. To ensure the discrete variables behaved as categorical variables, the CD and DD parameters were permuted such that no edge relationship between two variables was monotonic. In this manner, treating all relationships as linear would not suffice in producing correct output, as would be the case with categorical variables in practice.
With these parameters, data were generated using structural equation models from the network. For discrete variables, we first make a random draw uniformly from the interval \(\left[ 0,1\right] \) to be used as an error term that determines the actual value of the variable given the probabilities of each category. For continuous variables, Gaussian error terms with mean equal to zero, and standard deviation uniformly drawn from \(\left[ 1,2\right] \) are set for each variable. Since the dataset is based off of a DAG structure, convergence of the mean values for the variables occurs by starting at the root nodes of the graph, and propagating the values of children downwards from this starting point. To simulate latent variables in our dataset, we take our original simulated dataset and remove variables corresponding to the variables set as latent in the true PAG.
4.2.2 Lung human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) dataset
5 Results
Here we discuss the major findings of the paper. We begin by examining both the accuracy and runtime of the algorithms using the smaller 50 node synthetic datasets. We then discover how well these algorithms scale to 500 node datasets, and we finally discuss the effectiveness of the best performing approach on the HIV biological dataset.
5.1 50 node results
To discover the contributions of the various strategies to improve the FCI algorithm, we first compare FCI with its variants (FCIMAX and CFCI) along with BCCD to determine the most accurate and efficient algorithms. Then we incorporate the MGM strategy to the best performing algorithms to achieve scalability while maintaining accuracy.
5.1.1 FCI and variants
Our first experiment aimed to determine which algorithms were most accurate and efficient on 50 node datasets. Figure 1 shows accuracy results for these algorithms across both Adjacency Recovery and Orientation Recovery for each edge type: continuouscontinuous (CC), continuousdiscrete (CD), and discretediscrete (DD). In these plots, a single data point refers to an average precision and recall measurement for a particular setting of parameters across all the graphs. For each trial, \(\alpha \) was selected from the set \(\left[ .001, .01, .05, .1\right] \) to determine the impact of the parameter across a range of values. For BCCD, we used all combinations of edge probability cutoffs and orientation probability cutoffs chosen from the set \(\left[ .25, .5, .75\right] \), and so there are nine data points for this algorithm. The three columns of the figure correspond to edges between different types of variables (CC, CD, DD).
All FCI modifications produced similar adjacencies but the adjacency recovery for all these algorithms is significantly better than BCCD for edges involving categorical variables (CD, DD) and slightly worse for CC edges. This is expected since BCCD can handle monotonic relationships well (which applies to the CC edges only). In addition, we see that among the correctly identified adjacencies, FCIMAX tends to orient these with the best balance between precision and recall, whereas CFCI has high recall in all cases, and FCI has high precision in all cases. This is due to the fact that CFCI refrains from orienting many edges with arrowheads (thereby avoiding false negatives), and FCI orients nearly all edges as arrowheads (thereby avoiding false positives). We believe this to be because FCI uses the first separating set it finds as the true separating set, which results in inaccurate orientations on highdimensional data. Both of these scenarios are not ideal, as it becomes difficult to discern true causal relationships for both CFCI and FCI. In addition, we note that FCIMAX tends to outperform BCCD in all cases either by having similar precision and better recall or similar recall and better precision
This experiment was repeated for a more realistic sample size of the data (200 Samples, Online Resource 2) and similar results were obtained. The major difference that we note in this underpowered experiment is the larger spread of the data points across different parameter settings, thereby increasing the importance of selecting a suitable value for the \(\alpha \) parameter. A nice feature of these algorithms for adjacencies is that the \(\alpha \) value tends to balance between precision and recall (a high value for \(\alpha \) leads to good recall and poorer precision, and a low value leads to the opposite).
5.1.2 Incorporating MGM for fast skeleton discovery
The parallelization applied to MGMFCIMAX was also examined. Figure 3 shows the effect on runtime of changing the chunk size and the number of cores available for processing. The chunk size determines how small the recursive subdivisions in the orienting colliders phase should be before processing begins. Thus, a larger chunk size means that processing will begin earlier on larger jobs. The figure clearly displays that parallelization has a significant impact on performance, but that the impact has diminishing returns for a larger number of cores. The chunk size factor \(\beta \) does not have a straightforward relationship to runtime as the optimal chunk size depends on the number of cores used. However, \(\beta \) equal to or less than 1 appears to perform well across all scenarios as long as some parallelism is employed (greater than 1 core).
5.2 Scaling to 500 node networks
To determine the scalability of the approaches, we next tested the algorithms on 500 node networks. The algorithms tested in this section were FCI, MGMFCI, and MGMFCIMAX. The CFCI algorithms were not tested in this section as they did not complete a search on the 500 node networks (ran out of memory), and FCIMAX was not tested as it had nearly identical performance to MGMFCIMAX but less efficient runtime. BCCD was unable to complete a search on a 500 node network within a half day so it was also excluded from this section.
Figure 5 displays the accuracy results on these networks, and a similar pattern to the smaller networks appears. The algorithms all produce similar adjacencies though MGM allows the algorithms to maintain high precision across all parameter values. In orientation accuracy, clearly MGMFCIMAX produces the most accurate orientations, achieving the best scores in both precision and recall with almost no effect from changing the parameters of the algorithm. FCI demonstrates a slight edge in recall of DD edges; however, the parameter setting of FCI which achieves the same precision as the MGM approaches tends to have the same recall, implying that this is a simply a precisionrecall tradeoff. For more detailed results, Online Resource 5 has the \(F_{1}\) scores for the best performing parameters for each algorithm.
Figure 6a, b displays the results of measuring the runtime and number of independence tests performed for these algorithms on 8 core machines. Here, we find that for larger values of the \(\alpha \) independence test threshold FCI significantly slows down in comparison to the MGMbased approaches. For very small values of \(\alpha \) we find no significant difference between FCI and the MGMbased approaches in run time. However, in practice, \(\alpha = .05\) tends to be a commonly accepted parameter setting which results in very large runtimes using FCI. In all cases, FCI performs significantly more independence tests, and thus will certainly not be scalable if a more computationally costly independence test is used such as a Nonlinear regression test. Overall, we find that MGMFCIMAX tends to balance accuracy and efficiency most effectively in our simulated experiments.
5.3 Lung HIV dataset results
Though synthetic data provide a good testing ground for algorithm evaluation, it is still constrained by the assumptions used to generate the data. Thus, in this section we examine whether MGMFCIMAX can identify reasonable connections on real observational data. In Figure 7, we present the results of applying MGMFCIMAX to the Lung HIV dataset. Figure 7a displays a section of the full causal network containing expected relationships between variables for validation of the method. Gender and weight are causally associated with both Body Mass Index (BMI) and Height, though the relationship between height and weight is mediated by a latent variable. This latent could easily be explained by underlying genetic mechanisms controlling body size. The latent variable prediction between weight and BMI may have to do with the high correlation of BMI, Height, and Weight which can pose problems to graphical models. Despite this orientation, all of these associations are expected and are common knowledge. The chemotherapy variable is causally linked to cancer, since chemotherapy remains to be a common treatment for cancer patients. The final segment of the network is further validation as smoking, coughing, sore throat, and nasal congestion are causally related.
Figure 7b displays the variables causally related to the Carbon Monoxide Diffusion Capacity percent predicted (DLCOPP) variable, which is a key target variable in this dataset as it quantifies lung function. Many of these variables have obvious direct relationships to lung function: whether or not the patient smokes (F4SMOKE NOW), the amount the patient smokes (PACK YEARS), and whether the patient has Pneumonia (D18PNEUMONIA). The DIFF FEF25PP variable corresponds to the change in an individual’s lung function test called Forced Expiratory Flow before and after bronchodilator administration. According to the PAG, these two variables are mediated by a latent confounder which makes sense given that they are two different measures of lung function, and though they should be correlated, they should not be a causeeffect relation to one another. The final linked variable is CD4 cell count which is a measure of progression of the HIV illness, or equivalently a measure of immune system decline. Recent studies have demonstrated a relationship between low CD4 count and lung illnesses including lung cancer [6] and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) [20]. Our analysis provides evidence that the relationship may not just be a correlation, but may indeed be causally linked, warranting further study. Overall, this dataset provides a demonstration of the predictive power of MGMFCIMAX on real, causally insufficient, mixed datasets. The full learned causal graph and description of all variables are included in Online Resource 6 and 7, respectively.
6 Conclusions
We have presented several new approaches (MGMbased approaches and FCIMAX) and a parallelization procedure that improves the scalability of causal learning from mixed data with latent variables. The new strategies included the use of a new conditional independence test for mixed data and these were compared to the existing baseline methods (FCIStable, CFCI) and to another algorithm for directed graph inference over mixed data (BCCD). The comparisons included adjacency and orientation accuracy as well as run time measurements. Our results show that using the MAX search strategy to orient edges helps balance precision and recall among all edge types (CC, CD, DD). In addition, we find that using MGM for the skeleton identification overcomes the increase runtime of MAX and allows for scalability beyond FCI while maintaining the improved orientation predictions of the MAX strategy. Though determining the specific parameters to use for the algorithm is important, we note that in most cases the accuracies tend to be very similar across a wide range of parameter values which demonstrates the usability of the algorithms. We leave to future work a more detailed analysis of the limits of scalability of the MGMbased methods across parameter settings.
In addition, here we assumed linear and logistic regressions were accurate models of the interactions between continuous and discrete variables. However, it is not clear how well these assumptions will hold in certain continuous nonlinear cases. For future work, we plan to generalize our approaches to conditions where linearity is not a suitable assumption for the continuous variables. Finally, there is a pressing need to examine which of the many proposed algorithms for causal discovery are most suitable for particular graphical structures, particular distributional assumptions, and particular output metrics of interest (Structural Hamming Distance, Orientation Accuracy, etc.). Though analyses of this type were included in this work, we leave to future work a larger scale investigation of the algorithms proposed here and elsewhere under a larger variety of assumptions.
Notes
Acknowledgements
All algorithmic implementations and tests were done using the Tetrad V software from the Philosophy Department of Carnegie Mellon University. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01LM012087 (to PVB and CG) and T32CA082084 (to VKR). Partial support was also received by the following awards: U01HL137159 (PVB, PKC), P01HL103455 (AM) and U54HG008540. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
References
 1.Aliferis, C.F., Statnikov, A., Tsamardinos, I., Mani, S., Koutsoukos, X.D.: Local causal and markov blanket induction for causal discovery and feature selection for classification part ii: analysis and extensions. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11(Jan), 235–284 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 2.Cheng, J., Li, T., Levina, E., Zhu, J.: Highdimensional mixed graphical models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 26(2), 367–378 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 3.Claassen, T., Heskes, T.: A Bayesian approach to constraint based causal inference. In: UAI 2012, Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 207–216 (2012)Google Scholar
 4.Colombo, D., Maathuis, M.H.: Orderindependent constraintbased causal structure learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15(1), 3741–3782 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 5.Colombo, D., Maathuis, M.H., Kalisch, M., Richardson, T.S.: Learning highdimensional directed acyclic graphs with latent and selection variables. Ann. Stat. 40(1), 294–321 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1214/11AOS940 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Engsig, F.N., Kronborg, G., Larsen, C.S., Pedersen, G., Pedersen, C., Gerstoft, J., Obel, N.: Lung cancer in HIV patients and their parents: a danish cohort study. BMC Cancer 11(1), 1–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 7.Fellinghauer, B., Bühlmann, P., Ryffel, M., Von Rhein, M., Reinhardt, J.D.: Stable graphical model estimation with random forests for discrete, continuous, and mixed variables. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 64, 132–152 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.Hoyer, P., Janzing, D., Mooij, J., Peters, J., Schoelkopf, B.: Nonlinear causal discovery with additive noise models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 21, pp. 689–696 (2009)Google Scholar
 9.Hyttinen, A., Eberhardt, F., Hoyer, P.O.: Learning linear cyclic causal models with latent variables. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13, 3387–3439 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 10.Kummerfeld, E., Ramsey, J., Yang, R., Spirtes, P., Scheines, R.: Causal clustering for 2factor measurement models. In: Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pp. 34–49 (2014)Google Scholar
 11.Lauritzen, S.L.: Graphical Models, vol. 17. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 12.Le, T., Hoang, T., Li, J., Liu, L., Liu, H., Hu, S.: A fast PC algorithm for high dimensional causal discovery with multicore PCs. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform, pp. 1–1 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCBB.2016.2591526. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=7513439
 13.Lee, J.D., Hastie, T.J.: Learning the Structure of Mixed Graphical Models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 24(1), 230–253 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.Ogarrio, J.M., Spirtes, P., Ramsey, J.: A hybrid causal search algorithm for latent variable models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 52, 368–379 (2016)Google Scholar
 15.Pearl, J., Verma, T.S.: A theory of inferred causation. In: KR’91 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. pp. 441–452. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA (1991)Google Scholar
 16.Ramsey, J.: Improving Accuracy and Scalability of the PC Algorithm by Maximizing P Value. arXiv pp. 1–11 (2016). https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00378
 17.Ramsey, J., Zhang, J., Spirtes, P.L.: Adjacencyfaithfulness and conservative causal inference. In: Proceedings of the TwentySecond Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 401–408 (2006)Google Scholar
 18.Ramsey, J.D.: Scaling up greedy equivalence search for continuous variables. arXiv (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07749
 19.Richardson, T., Spirtes, P.: Ancestral graph Markov models. Ann. Stat. 30(4), 962–1030 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1031689015 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 20.Risso, K., Guillouetde Salvador, F., Valerio, L., Puglièse, P., Naqvi, A., Durant, J., Demonchy, E., Perbost, I., Cua, E., Marquette, C.H., et al.: Copd in hivinfected patients: Cd4 cell count highly correlated. PloS One 12(1), e0169–359 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.Rubin, D.B.: Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66(5), 688–701 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Sedgewick, A.: Graphical models for de novo and pathwaybased network prediction over multimodal highthroughput biological data. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh (2016). http://dscholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/29404
 23.Sedgewick, A.J., Shi, I., Donovan, R.M., Benos, P.V.: Learning mixed graphical models with separate sparsity parameters and stabilitybased model selection. BMC Bioinform. 17(S5), 175 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1285901610390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 24.Sokolova, E., Groot, P., Claassen, T., Heskes, T.: LNAI 8754—causal discovery from databases with discrete and continuous variables, pp. 442–457 (2014)Google Scholar
 25.Spirtes, P.: An anytime algorithm for causal inference. In: Proceedings of AISTATS, p. 213231 (2001)Google Scholar
 26.Spirtes, P., Glymour, C.N., Scheines, R.: Causation, Prediction, and Search. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 27.Spirtes, P., Meek, C., Richardson, T.: Causal inference in the presence of latent variables and selection bias. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 499–506 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1339801401737.2
 28.Stephens, Z.D., Lee, S.Y., Faghri, F., Campbell, R.H., Zhai, C., Efron, M.J., Iyer, R., Schatz, M.C., Sinha, S., Robinson, G.E.: Big data: Astronomical or genomical? PLoS Biol. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002195
 29.Tur, I., Castelo, R.: Learning mixed graphical models from data with p larger than n. In: Proceedings of the TwentySeventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 689–697. AUAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
 30.Zhang, J.: On the completeness of orientation rules for causal discovery in the presence of latent confounders and selection bias. Artif. Intell. 172(16–17), 1873–1896 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.08.001 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.