Neuro-Causal Factor Analysis
Alex Markham, Mingyu Liu, Bryon Aragam, Liam Solus

TL;DR
Neuro-Causal Factor Analysis (NCFA) introduces a nonparametric framework combining causal discovery and deep learning to identify and interpret latent factors underlying observed data with causal reasoning and improved model simplicity.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel nonparametric approach that integrates causal discovery with variational autoencoders for more interpretable and causal latent factor analysis.
Findings
NCFA performs comparably to standard VAEs in data reconstruction.
NCFA achieves sparser architecture and lower complexity.
It enables causal interpretation of latent factors.
Abstract
Factor analysis (FA) is a statistical tool for studying how observed variables with some mutual dependences can be expressed as functions of mutually independent unobserved factors, and it is widely applied throughout the psychological, biological, and physical sciences. We revisit this classic method from the comparatively new perspective given by advancements in causal discovery and deep learning, introducing a framework for Neuro-Causal Factor Analysis (NCFA). Our approach is fully nonparametric: it identifies factors via latent causal discovery methods and then uses a variational autoencoder (VAE) that is constrained to abide by the Markov factorization of the distribution with respect to the learned graph. We evaluate NCFA on real and synthetic data sets, finding that it performs comparably to standard VAEs on data reconstruction tasks but with the advantages of sparser…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2024
1. The paper addresses a non-trivial task and introduces a new method to tackle this challenge. In contrast to most traditional factor analysis (FA) methods, the approach proposed in this paper can handle nonlinear FA models. 2. The identification results of this paper are novel and significant for the causal discovery and generative models community. 3. The experimental results are presented in a logical way.
1. I have some confusion regarding the conclusion in Theorem 3.6. This conclusion states that if there exist UDGs with a unique minimum edge clique cover, then we can uniquely identify that graph G. I attempted to read the proof; however, the author references the conclusions of two other articles to establish this point. Without any specific constraints on the generating function, the validity of this conclusion requires further elucidation. I hope the author can provide an intuitive proof fram
- This work Neuro-Causal factor analysis using a VAE framework.
- Clarity is one of the main issues of this work. Many terminology descriptions are missing or without explanation. For example, what is the full name of MCM graph and ECC model? - Moreover, the contribution of this work is rather limited and it seems to a simple incremental of the work Markham & Grosse-Wentrup, 2020. - The notations are confusing and the theoretical results in this paper are problematic. Theorem 3.6 states that the DAG G is identifiable with the conditions that $M_{i}\perp M_{
1. The presentation is clear. 2. The experiements concerning the validation delta of the learning process is enough.
1. Some aspects concerning the theoretical soundness should be improved. 2. The efficiency should be further analyzed.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference · Machine Learning in Materials Science · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
MethodsFeedback Alignment
