Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis (MCES), a framework that ranks candidate drivers in observational data by aggregating evidence from eleven different causal and non-causal methods across eight mathematical traditions. By employing a Convergent Evidence Score (CES), MCES quantifies the degree of convergence among methods, enabling practitioners to prioritize hypotheses based on the strength of evidence rather than relying on a single method. The results demonstrate that MCES effectively identifies true causal relationships, achieving high precision in ranking true edges while highlighting that no single method consistently outperforms others across various scenarios.
MCES reveals that integrating diverse analytical methods can dramatically enhance the reliability of causal inference from observational data, achieving perfect precision in ranking true relationships.
Practitioners inferring causality from observational data usually rely on a single method and treat its output as causal truth. Recent tools select an optimal method for a dataset, and recent ensembles aggregate multiple causal-discovery algorithms into one graph, but little work pools evidence across different mathematical traditions, including non-causal ones. We present Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis (MCES), a framework that ranks which candidate drivers in an observational system are most likely relevant to a set of outcomes, and with what strength of evidence. MCES runs eleven methods across eight mathematical traditions on observational panel data and pools their outputs into a Convergent Evidence Score (CES), a linear opinion pool. CES quantifies convergence of evidence across analytical lenses: the degree to which methods with different assumptions point to the same driver-outcome relationship. It does not claim causal identification in the interventionist sense; it supports hypothesis prioritization, not a transferable probability of causation. MCES first applies Structural-Behavioral Decomposition to remove definitional (algebraic) relationships, then runs all methods, normalizes outputs to [0,1], and pools them. We distinguish MCES from method selection, structural ensembles, prediction ensembles, and literature synthesis. Using synthetic data with embedded ground truth, the Sachs protein-signaling benchmark, six Bayesian-network structure benchmarks, and two further synthetic domains, we show MCES ranks true edges near the top (Precision@5 = 1.0, Precision@10 = 0.96 on the primary scenario), with a low empirical rate of null pairs reaching Moderate-or-higher convergence. Our central point is not that the pool beats every individual method, but that no single method is uniformly best across the evaluated scenarios, so MCES offers a method-agnostic default.
