Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis: Ranking Candidate Drivers by Convergent Cross-Method Evidence from Observational Data

Abstract

Practitioners inferring causality from observational data usually rely on a single method and treat its output as causal truth. Recent tools select an optimal method for a dataset, and recent ensembles aggregate multiple causal-discovery algorithms into one graph, but little work pools evidence across different mathematical traditions, including non-causal ones. We present Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis (MCES), a framework that ranks which candidate drivers in an observational system are most likely relevant to a set of outcomes, and with what strength of evidence. MCES runs eleven methods across eight mathematical traditions on observational panel data and pools their outputs into a Convergent Evidence Score (CES), a linear opinion pool. CES quantifies convergence of evidence across analytical lenses: the degree to which methods with different assumptions point to the same driver-outcome relationship. It does not claim causal identification in the interventionist sense; it supports hypothesis prioritization, not a transferable probability of causation. MCES first applies Structural-Behavioral Decomposition to remove definitional (algebraic) relationships, then runs all methods, normalizes outputs to [0,1], and pools them. We distinguish MCES from method selection, structural ensembles, prediction ensembles, and literature synthesis. Using synthetic data with embedded ground truth, the Sachs protein-signaling benchmark, six Bayesian-network structure benchmarks, and two further synthetic domains, we show MCES ranks true edges near the top (Precision@5 = 1.0, Precision@10 = 0.96 on the primary scenario), with a low empirical rate of null pairs reaching Moderate-or-higher convergence. Our central point is not that the pool beats every individual method, but that no single method is uniformly best across the evaluated scenarios, so MCES offers a method-agnostic default.