How Many Samples Are Needed to Determine Causal Direction? Sharp Minimax Bounds for Bivariate LiNGAM

Jikai Jin

arXiv 16 Aug 2026 · Mathematics — Statistics Theory

arXiv:2608.15840 · PDF · Extracted main text

Abstract

We study how many observations are needed to determine the causal direction between two linearly related variables. Classical LiNGAM theory shows that independent non-Gaussian disturbances identify the direction, but does not quantify the difficulty when the causal effect is weak or the disturbances are nearly Gaussian. Let $β$ bound the absolute structural coefficient from below, let $ν$ measure each standardized disturbance's distance from Gaussianity, and let the disturbance scales lie in $[\underlineσ,\overlineσ]$. We prove the sharp local minimax law \[ N_2^\star(β,ν,δ) \asymp \frac{\log(1/δ)} {d_β^2+β^2ν^2}, \qquad d_β= \left[β^2- \left(1-\frac{\underlineσ^2}{\overlineσ^2}\right)\right]_+. \] Previous theory established population identifiability or assumed a fixed separation between the two directions. By contrast, we establish the sharp sample complexity as a joint function of edge strength, distance from Gaussianity, and scale uncertainty, and characterize when identification comes from non-Gaussian dependence or from covariance alone. The proof was independently generated with GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex's Ultra mode during a two-hour session. The human author supplied the prompt and was responsible only forchecking the proof and revising and polishing the manuscript.

Citation extraction

appendix boundary found by none_found · 100% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.

Showing the top 10 of 15 scored citations.