Paper detail

Fourier Feature Methods for Nonlinear Causal Discovery: FFML Scoring, TRFF Scoring, and FFCI Testing in Mixed Data

Gaussian process (GP) marginal likelihood scores and kernel conditional independence tests are theoretically appealing for nonlinear causal discovery but computationally prohibitive at scale. We present three complementary RFF-based methods forming a practical toolkit for score-based, constraint-based, and hybrid causal discovery. The Fourier Feature Marginal Likelihood (FFML) score approximates the exact GP marginal likelihood by replacing the $n x n$ kernel Gram matrix with a finite-dimensional feature representation, reducing cost to $O(nm^2 + m^3)$ while retaining the probabilistic interpretation and automatic complexity penalty of the exact score. FFML extends to mixed (continuous and discrete) parent sets via a product-kernel construction, with a Kronecker path for small discrete parent sets and a Hadamard-product path otherwise. The Tetrad Random Fourier Feature (TRFF) score is a complementary BIC-style alternative using penalized Student-t regression with random Fourier features. TRFF offers robustness to heavy-tailed noise and faster runtime than FFML. Empirically, TRFF and FFML exhibit a complementary precision-recall profile: TRFF achieves higher precision while FFML achieves better recall and lower SHD overall. The Fourier Feature Conditional Independence (FFCI) test is a fast nonparametric CI test for mixed data, using ridge residualization in feature space and a Frobenius-norm cross-covariance statistic approximated as a weighted sum of chi-squared variables. Empirically, BOSS+FFML achieves the lowest SHD on nonlinear data, while BOSS+TRFF offers the highest precision. When run through PC-Max, FFCI and RCIT exhibit complementary precision-recall profiles: RCIT is more precise while FFCI achieves better recall and substantially lower SHD, at approximately twice the runtime.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.