Replicating TRACE: A Practitioner's Guide to Its Threshold and Particle Budget
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
TRACE (Math & Lienhart, arXiv:2602.01135) reads causal graphs over event types out of a pretrained autoregressive sequence model by thresholding a per-position conditional-mutual-information estimate at a fixed tau. We independently replicate its headline synthetic result: with tau selected on a validation split, mean per-sequence F1 against exact interventional truth reaches 0.90-0.91 at vocabulary size 1000 (paper: 0.91) and 0.86-0.91 from 100 to 2000. First, the optimal threshold is pinned to the truth margin, not to any constant: at every size the errors at tau* straddle the delta = 0.05 margin defining ground truth (missed true edges lie just above it, accepted false ones just below), and the blind optimum lands near delta/2 times the estimator's calibration, confirmed out of sample at 5000. Second, at a single global threshold TRACE mostly recovers a direct, adjacent-influence graph: lag-1 true edges are recalled at 0.97-0.99, while true edges at lag 2 or more read orders of magnitude lower---the reading-scale price of randomizing mediating positions, which an exact test of direct causal effect requires when the truth is unknown. A per-lag threshold family recovers a third to a half of lag-2 truth; on lag-uniform data one validated threshold recalls every lag at 0.40-0.87, 8-26 pp below an atomic-intervention control at lags 3-6. Third, the default lag decay of the paper's synthetic benchmark concentrates about 85% of interventional truth at lag 1 and pushes the rest below the estimator's noise floor, so headline F1 there certifies lag-1 recovery only and conflates the benchmark's skew with the algorithm's own limit; a flatter decay separates the two. Fourth, F1 saturates from N = 2 particles at the selected threshold---a property of the threshold's margin over the noise floor, not of the estimator, which converges as N^(-1/2). We distill five practitioner rules.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
8 of 14 references.
References · 8
- 2021Beware of the Simulated DAG! Causal Discovery Benchmarks May Be Easy To Gamecited by 161
- 2020CAUSE: Learning Granger Causality from Event Sequences using Attribution Methodscited by 36
- 2023Structure Learning with Continuous Optimization: A Sober Look and Beyondcited by 36
- 2021THP: Topological Hawkes Processes for Learning Causal Structure on Event Sequencescited by 19
- 2023Structural Hawkes Processes for Learning Causal Structure from Discrete-Time Event Sequencescited by 14
- 2026Your Autoregressive Model Already Reveals the Causal Graphcited by 2
- 2026Learning to Predict, Discover, and Reason in High-Dimensional Event Sequencescited by 1
- 2026Consistency evaluation of benchmarks used for causal discoverycited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.