Causal Discovery as Dialectical Aggregation: A Quantitative Argumentation Framework

Constraint-based causal discovery is brittle in finite-sample regimes because erroneous conditional-independence (CI) decisions can cascade into substantial structural errors. We propose Quantitative Argumentation for Causal Discovery (QACD), a semantics-driven framework that represents CI outcomes as graded, defeasible arguments rather than irreversible constraints. QACD maps statistical test outcomes to argument strengths and aggregates conflicting evidence through connectivity-mediated witness propagation, producing a fixed-point acceptability labeling over candidate adjacencies. Experiments on standard benchmark Bayesian networks suggest that QACD improves structural coherence and int...

<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/9a948a95-d772-4869-bbf7-7105b713496c" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.