Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Wiebke Günther
dblp:243/3557
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
causal discovery |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Causal discovery with endogenous context variables · NeurIPS 2024 Conditional Independence Testing with Heteroskedastic Data and Applications to Causal Discovery · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Causal discovery with endogenous context variables · NeurIPS 2024 Conditional Independence Testing with Heteroskedastic Data and Applications to Causal Discovery · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › conditional independence
conditional independence testing |
1.3 | 2 | 2024 | Causal discovery with endogenous context variables · NeurIPS 2024 Conditional Independence Testing with Heteroskedastic Data and Applications to Causal Discovery · NeurIPS 2022 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference › causal discovery
constraint-based causal discovery |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Conditional Independence Testing with Heteroskedastic Data and Applications to Causal Discovery · NeurIPS 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
structural causal model · 1.3constraint-based causal discovery · 0.8partial correlation test · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Causal discovery with endogenous context variablesabstractSystems with variations of the underlying generating mechanism between different contexts, i.e., different environments or internal states in which the system operates, are common in the real world, such as soil moisture regimes in Earth science. Besides understanding the shared properties of the system, in practice, the question of context-specific properties, i.e., the change in causal relationships between contexts, arises. For real-world data, contexts are often driven by system variables, e.g., precipitation highly influences soil moisture. Nevertheless, this setup needs to be studied more. To account for such endogenous contexts in causal discovery, our work proposes a constraint-based method that can efficiently discover context-specific causal graphs using an adaptive testing approach. Our approach tests conditional independence on the pooled datasets to infer the dependence between system variables, including the context, to avoid introducing selection bias. To yield context-specific insights, conditional independence is tested on context-specific data. We work out the theoretical framework for this adaptive testing approach and give a detailed discussion of the connection to structural causal models, including sufficiency assumptions, which allow to prove the soundness of our algorithm and to interpret the results causally. A simulation study to evaluate numerical properties shows that our approach behaves as expected, but also leads to a further understanding of current limitations and viable extensions. Wiebke Günther, Oana-Iuliana Popescu, Martin Rabel, Urmi Ninad, Andreas Gerhardus, Jakob Runge |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Causal Discovery for time series from multiple datasets with latent contextsabstractCausal discovery from time series data is a typical problem setting across the sciences. Often, multiple datasets of the same system variables are available, for instance, time series of river runoff from different catchments. The local catchment systems then share certain causal parents, such as time-dependent large-scale weather over all catchments, but differ in other catchment-specific drivers, such as the altitude of the catchment. These drivers can be called temporal and spatial contexts, respectively, and are often partially unobserved. Pooling the datasets and considering the joint causal graph among system, context, and certain auxiliary variables enables us to overcome such latent confounding of system variables. In this work, we present a non-parametric time series causal discovery method, J(oint)-PCMCI$^+$, that efficiently learns such joint causal time series graphs when both observed and latent contexts are present, including time lags. We present asymptotic consistency results and numerical experiments demonstrating the utility and limitations of the method. Wiebke Günther, Urmi Ninad, Jakob Runge |
UAI | 1 |
| 2022 | Conditional Independence Testing with Heteroskedastic Data and Applications to Causal DiscoveryabstractConditional independence (CI) testing is frequently used in data analysis and machine learning for various scientific fields and it forms the basis of constraint-based causal discovery. Oftentimes, CI testing relies on strong, rather unrealistic assumptions. One of these assumptions is homoskedasticity, in other words, a constant conditional variance is assumed. We frame heteroskedasticity in a structural causal model framework and present an adaptation of the partial correlation CI test that works well in the presence of heteroskedastic noise, given that expert knowledge about the heteroskedastic relationships is available. Further, we provide theoretical consistency results for the proposed CI test which carry over to causal discovery under certain assumptions. Numerical causal discovery experiments demonstrate that the adapted partial correlation CI test outperforms the standard test in the presence of heteroskedasticity and is on par for the homoskedastic case. Finally, we discuss the general challenges and limits as to how expert knowledge about heteroskedasticity can be accounted for in causal discovery. Wiebke Günther, Urmi Ninad, Jonas Wahl, Jakob Runge |
NeurIPS | 1 |