On Learning Causal Structures from Non-Experimental Data without Any
  Faithfulness Assumption
  Consider the problem of learning, from non-experimental data, the causal
(Markov equivalence) structure of the true, unknown causal Bayesian network
(CBN) on a given, fixed set of (categorical) variables. This learning problem
is known to be so hard that there is no learning algorithm that converges to
the truth for all possible CBNs (on the given set of variables). So the
convergence property has to be sacrificed for some CBNs---but for which? In
response, the standard practice has been to design and employ learning
algorithms that secure the convergence property for at least all the CBNs that
satisfy the famous faithfulness condition, which implies sacrificing the
convergence property for some CBNs that violate the faithfulness condition
(Spirtes et al. 2000). This standard design practice can be justified by
assuming---that is, accepting on faith---that the true, unknown CBN satisfies
the faithfulness condition. But the real question is this: Is it possible to
explain, without assuming the faithfulness condition or any of its weaker
variants, why it is mandatory rather than optional to follow the standard
design practice? This paper aims to answer the above question in the
affirmative. We first define an array of modes of convergence to the truth as
desiderata that might or might not be achieved by a causal learning algorithm.
Those modes of convergence concern (i) how pervasive the domain of convergence
is on the space of all possible CBNs and (ii) how uniformly the convergence
happens. Then we prove a result to the following effect: for any learning
algorithm that tackles the causal learning problem in question, if it achieves
the best achievable mode of convergence (considered in this paper), then it
must follow the standard design practice of converging to the truth for at
least all CBNs that satisfy the faithfulness condition---it is a requirement,
not an option.
