Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Aniket Vashishtha

dblp:289/5566 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 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
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 46% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 23% Deep learning architectures and training · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference
0.912025
Causal Order: The Key to Leveraging Imperfect Experts in Causal Inference · ICLR 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › causal reasoning
causal ordering
0.912025
Causal Order: The Key to Leveraging Imperfect Experts in Causal Inference · ICLR 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning
0.912025
Teaching Transformers Causal Reasoning through Axiomatic Training · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
transformer
0.912025
Teaching Transformers Causal Reasoning through Axiomatic Training · ICML 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

triplet prompting · 0.9pairwise prompting · 0.9in-context learning · 0.9axiomatic training · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Causal Order: The Key to Leveraging Imperfect Experts in Causal Inference
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been used as experts to infer causal graphs, often by repeatedly applying a pairwise prompt that asks about the causal relationship of each variable pair. However, such experts, including human domain experts, cannot distinguish between direct and indirect effects given a pairwise prompt. Therefore, instead of the graph, we propose that causal order be used as a more stable output interface for utilizing expert knowledge. When querying a perfect expert with a pairwise prompt, we show that the inferred graph can have significant errors whereas the causal order is always correct. In practice, however, LLMs are imperfect experts and we find that pairwise prompts lead to multiple cycles and do not yield a valid order. Hence, we propose a prompting strategy that introduces an auxiliary variable for every variable pair and instructs the LLM to avoid cycles within this triplet. We show, both theoretically and empirically, that such a triplet prompt leads to fewer cycles than the pairwise prompt. Across multiple real-world graphs, the triplet prompt yields a more accurate order using both LLMs and human annotators as experts. By querying the expert with different auxiliary variables for the same variable pair, it also increases robustness---triplet method with much smaller models such as Phi-3 and Llama-3 8B outperforms a pairwise prompt with GPT-4. For practical usage, we show how the estimated causal order from the triplet method can be used to reduce error in downstream discovery and effect inference tasks.
Aniket Vashishtha, Abbavaram Gowtham Reddy, Abhinav Kumar 0001, Saketh Bachu, Vineeth N. Balasubramanian, Amit Sharma 0007
ICLR1
2025 Teaching Transformers Causal Reasoning through Axiomatic Training
abstract
For text-based AI systems to interact in the real world, causal reasoning is an essential skill. Since interventional data is costly to generate, we study to what extent an agent can learn causal reasoning from passive data. Specifically, we consider an axiomatic training setup where an agent learns from multiple demonstrations of a causal axiom (or rule), rather than incorporating the axiom as an inductive bias or inferring it from data values. A key question is whether the agent would learn to generalize from the axiom demonstrations to new scenarios. For example, if a transformer model is trained on demonstrations of the causal transitivity axiom over small graphs, would it generalize to applying the transitivity axiom over large graphs? Our results, based on a novel axiomatic training scheme, indicate that such generalization is possible. We consider the task of inferring whether a variable causes another variable, given a causal graph structure. We find that a 67 million parameter transformer model, when trained on linear causal chains (along with some noisy variations) can generalize well to new kinds of graphs, including longer causal chains, causal chains with reversed order, and graphs with branching; even when it is not explicitly trained for such settings. Our model performs at par (or even better) than many larger language models such as GPT-4, Gemini Pro, and Phi-3. Overall, our axiomatic training framework provides a new paradigm of learning causal reasoning from passive data that can be used to learn arbitrary axioms, as long as sufficient demonstrations can be generated.
Aniket Vashishtha, Abhinav Kumar 0001, Atharva Pandey, Abbavaram Gowtham Reddy, Kabir Ahuja, Vineeth N. Balasubramanian, Amit Sharma 0007
ICML1