Distinguishing cause from effect using observational data: methods and
  benchmarks
  The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a
fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal
discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes
X, given joint observations of two variables X, Y. An example is to decide
whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint
measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no
confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal
discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for
addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two
families of such methods: Additive Noise Methods (ANM) and Information
Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CauseEffectPairs
that consists of data for 100 different cause-effect pairs selected from 37
datasets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine,
engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground
truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several
bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in
addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world
data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from
effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would
be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best
performing methods overall is the additive-noise method originally proposed by
Hoyer et al. (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63+-10 % and an AUC of
0.74+-0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of
this work we prove the consistency of that method.
