Beyond identifiability: Learning causal representations with few environments and finite samples
Hey there, little explorer! 🚀
Imagine you have a toy car, and you want to know why it moves. Is it because you push it? Or because the batteries are inside?
Scientists are teaching computers to be super detectives! 🕵️♀️ They want computers to not just see things, but to understand the secret reasons behind them. Like knowing the batteries make the car go, not just that it moves.
This paper is like a secret map for computers. It helps them learn these "secret reasons" even when they don't have tons of examples or different places to play. It's like learning how all your toys work, even if you only play with them in your room! 🧸💡 It helps computers figure out the "why" much faster and smarter!
arXiv:2603.25796v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We provide explicit, finite-sample guarantees for learning causal representations from data with a sublinear number of environments. Causal representation learning seeks to provide a rigourous foundation for the general representation learning problem by bridging causal models with latent factor models in order to learn interpretable representations with causal semantics. Despite a blossoming theory of identifiability in causal representation learning, estimation and finite-sample bounds are less well understood. We show that causal representat — Inbeom Lee, Tongtong Jin, Bryon Aragam
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:We provide explicit, finite-sample guarantees for learning causal representations from data with a sublinear number of environments. Causal representation learning seeks to provide a rigourous foundation for the general representation learning problem by bridging causal models with latent factor models in order to learn interpretable representations with causal semantics. Despite a blossoming theory of identifiability in causal representation learning, estimation and finite-sample bounds are less well understood. We show that causal representations can be learned with only a logarithmic number of unknown, multi-node interventions, and that the intervention targets need not be carefully designed in advance. Through a careful perturbation analysis, we provide a new analysis of this problem that guarantees consistent recovery of (a) the latent causal graph, (b) the mixing matrix and representations, and (c) \emph{unknown} intervention targets.
Subjects:
Machine Learning (stat.ML); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Statistics Theory (math.ST)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.25796 [stat.ML]
(or arXiv:2603.25796v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.25796
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Bryon Aragam [view email] [v1] Thu, 26 Mar 2026 18:03:57 UTC (24 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers

New Rowhammer attack can grant kernel-level control on Nvidia workstation GPUs
A study from researchers at UNC Chapel Hill and Georgia Tech shows that GDDR6-based Rowhammer attacks can grant kernel-level access to Linux systems equipped with GPUs based on Nvidia's Ampere and Ada Lovelace architectures. The vulnerability appears significantly more severe than what was outlined in a paper last year. Read Entire Article
![[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-matrix-rain-CvjLrWJiXfamUnvj5xT9J9.webp)
[D] ICML Reviewer Acknowledgement
Hi, I'm a little confused about ICML discussion period Does the period for reviewer acknowledging responses have already ended? One of the four reviewers did not present any answer to a paper of mine. Do you know if the reviewer can still change their score before April 7th? There is a reviewer comment that I will answer on Monday. Will the reviewer be able to update the score after seeing my answer? Thanks! submitted by /u/Massive_Horror9038 [link] [comments]

Considerations for growing the pie
Recently some friends and I were comparing growing the pie interventions to an increasing our friends' share of the pie intervention, and at first we mostly missed some general considerations against the latter type. 1. Decision-theoretic considerations The world is full of people with different values working towards their own ends; each of them can choose to use their resources to increase the total size of the pie or to increase their share of the pie. All of them would significantly prefer a world in which resources were used to increase the size of the pie, and this leads to a number [of] compelling justifications for each individual to cooperate. . . . by increasing the size of the pie we create a world which is better for people on average, and from behind the veil of ignorance we s



Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!