Support Selection Beyond Smooth DAG Exactness: Completion Geometry,Score Margins, and Selective Certificates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Smooth acyclicity constraints answer whether a weighted support is a DAG, whereas structure learning asks which support change should be made. Existing analyses establish degeneracy for particular constraint formulas but do not isolate what follows from smooth exactness itself. At a DAG boundary, we show that minimal cycle completions generate a squarefree monomial ideal containing every restricted Taylor jet of an exact representation. If the smallest completion has q edges, the first possible response has order q for a vector residual and 2q for a nonnegative scalar. Exponentially many constant-scale cyclic manifolds exhibit the same lack of ranking away from the boundary for NOTEARS and DAGMA. We derive the exact selection time for an isolated cycle. When Psi'(h)asymp h^nu, the feasibility-only time is T0(varepsilon)=Theta(varepsilon-(2nu+1)); a score margin changes the leading dynamics at scale T0-1 for nu>0, while nu=0 has a logarithmic boundary layer requiring γ T0log(1/varepsilon)→0. Experiments verify this law, and a truth-free separation statistic predicts selection time on 320 official NOTEARS/DAGMA trajectories (Spearman -0.52 and -0.66, permutation p<10-4). For finite samples, a parent-set confidence family and forced-opposite queries certify skeleton and unshielded-collider labels shared by every population optimum of a frozen score. Across 320 runs, every regret bound covers an independent oracle-score audit. None of 3,042 certified skeleton or 2,396 collider labels disagrees with the oracle-score optimum, although 4.4% and 5.5%, respectively, disagree with the generating graph. These results separate DAG feasibility, score-based support selection, and causal identification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2026.
Builds on
14 of 33 references.
References · 14
- 2019DAG-GNN: DAG Structure Learning with Graph Neural Networkscited by 329
- 2018Algorithmic Regularization in Learning Deep Homogeneous Models: Layers are Automatically Balancedcited by 172
- 2022DAGMA: Learning DAGs via M-matrices and a Log-Determinant Acyclicity Characterizationcited by 135
- 2020DAGs with No Fears: A Closer Look at Continuous Optimization for Learning Bayesian Networkscited by 66
- 2021DAGs with No Curl: An Efficient DAG Structure Learning Approachcited by 53
- 2023Structure Learning with Continuous Optimization: A Sober Look and Beyondcited by 34
- 2023Stable Differentiable Causal Discoverycited by 30
- 2017Nearly Optimal Sampling Algorithms for Combinatorial Pure Explorationcited by 18
- 2023Constraint-Free Structure Learning with Smooth Acyclic Orientationscited by 10
- 2024Markov Equivalence and Consistency in Differentiable Structure Learningcited by 6
- 2025Analytic DAG Constraints for Differentiable DAG Learningcited by 5
- 2026Exploiting Non-Negativity in DAG Structure Learningcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.