# Causal graphical model reading group 2020

## An introduction to conditional independence DAGs and their use for causal inference.

TODO: I should return to this and talk about the DAG here entirely in terms of marginalisation and conditionalisation operations. I think that would be clearer.

See also a previous version, and the notebook on causal inference this will hopefully inform one day.

We follow Pearl’s summary , sections 1-3.

In particular, the paper surveys the development of mathematical tools for inferring (from a combination of data and assumptions) answers to three types of causal queries: (1) queries about the effects of potential interventions, (also called “causal effects” or “policy evaluation”) (2) queries about probabilities of counterfactuals, (including assessment of “regret,” “attribution” or “causes of effects”) and (3) queries about direct and indirect effects (also known as “mediation”)

In particular, I want to get to the identification of causal effects given an existing causal graphical model from observational data with unobserved covariates via criteria such as the back-door criterion. We’ll see. The approach is casual, motivating Pearl’s pronouncements without deriving everything from axioms. Will make restrictive assumptions to reduce complexity of presentation. Some concerns (e.g. over what we take as axioms and what as theorems) will be ignored.

Not covered: UGs, PDAGs, Maximal Ancestral Graphs…

## Motivational examples

• Does chocolate cause you to get Nobel prizes?
• Does hydroxychloroquine reduce COVID-19 death rate?
• Can we learn semantic objects from video?
• How do our weather-dependent models generalise to a changed climate? How does our in-house trained model generalise to messy real-world data?

## Generally

• Learning physical systems where we cannot do experiments
• Learning physical systems where someone else is intervening
• Generalising ML to out-of-sample conditions
• Learning the costs of outcomes that we do not observe
• Identify spurious inference from uncontrolled correlation

Graphical causal inference is the best-regarded tool to solve these problems (or at least, tell us when we can hope to solve these problems, which is not always.)

## Machinery

We are interested in representing influence between variables in a non-parametric fashion.

Our main tool to do this will be conditional independence DAGs, and causal use of these. Alternative name: “Bayesian Belief networks”.1

### Structural Equation Models

We have a finite collections of random variables $$\mathbf{V}=\{X_1, X_2,\dots\}$$.

For simplicity of exposition, each of the RVs will be discrete so that we may work with pmfs, and write $$p(X_i|X_j)$$ for the pmf. I sometimes write $$p(x_i|x_j)$$ to mean $$p(X_i=x_i|X_j=x_j)$$.

Extension to continuous RVs, or arbitrary RVs, is straightforward for everything I discuss here. (A challenge is if the probabilities are not all strictly positive on joint cdfs.)

Here is an abstract SEM example. Motivation in terms of structural models: We consider each RV $$X_i$$ as a node and introduce a non-deterministic noise $$\varepsilon_i$$ at each node. (Figure 3 in the Pearl (2009a))

\begin{aligned} Z_1 &= \varepsilon_1 \\ Z_2 &= \varepsilon_2 \\ Z_3 &= f_3(Z_1, Z_2, \varepsilon_3) \\ X &= f_X(Z_1, Z_3, \varepsilon_X) \\ Y &= f_Y(X, Z_2, Z_3, \varepsilon_Y) \\ \end{aligned}

Without further information about the forms of $$f_i$$ or $$\varepsilon_i$$, our assumptions have constrained the conditional independence relations to permit a particular factorization of the mass function:

\begin{aligned} p(x, y, z_3, z_2, z_1) = &p(z_1) \\ &\cdot p(z_2) \\ &\cdot p(z_3|z_1, z_2) \\ &\cdot p(x|z_1,z_2) \\ &\cdot p(y|x,z_2,z_3) \\ \end{aligned}

We would like to know which variables are conditionally independent of others, given such a factorization.

More notation. We write

$X \perp Y|Z$ to mean “$$X$$ is independent of $$Y$$ given $$Z$$”.

We use this notation for sets of random variables, and bold them to emphasis this.

$\mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{Z}$

We can solve these questions via a graph formalism. That’s where the DAGs come in.

### Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)

A DAG is graph with directed edges, and no cycles. (you cannot return to the same starting node travelling only forward along the arrows.)

Has an obvious interpretation in terms of causal graphs. Familiar from structural equation models.

DAGs are defined by a set of vertexes and (directed) edges.

$\mathcal{G}=(\mathbf{V},E)$

We show the directs of edges by writing them as arrows.

For nodes $$X,Y\in \mathbf{V}$$ we write $$X \rightarrow Y$$ to mean there is a directed edged joining them.

We need some terminology.

Parents
The parents of a node $$X$$ in a graph are all nodes joined to it by an incoming arrow, $$\operatorname{parents}(X)=\{Y\in \mathbf{V}:Y\rightarrow X\}.$$ For convenience, we define $$X\in\operatorname{parents}(X)$$
Children
similarly, $$\operatorname{children}(X)=\{Y\in \mathbf{V}:X\rightarrow Y\}.$$
Co-parent
$$\operatorname{coparents}(X)=\{Y\in \mathbf{V}:\exists Z\in \mathbf{V} \text{ s.t. } X\rightarrow Z\text{ and }Y\rightarrow Z\}.$$

Ancestors and descendants should be clear as well.

This proceeds in 3 steps

• The graphs describe conditional factorization relations.

• We do some work to construct from these relations some conditional independence relations, which may be read off the graph.

• From these relations plus a causal interpretation we derive rules for identification of effects

Anyway, a joint distribution $$p(\mathbf{V})$$ decomposes according to a directed graph $$G$$ if we may factor it

$p(X_1,X_2,\dots,X_v)=\prod_{X=1}^v p(X_i|\operatorname{parents}(X_i))$

Uniqueness?

The Pearl-style causal graphs we draw are I-graphs, which is to say &independence* graphs. We are supposed to think of them not as the graph where every edge shows an effect, but as a graph where every missing edge shows there is no effect.

It would be tempting to suppose that a node is independent of its children given its parents or somesuch. But things are not so simple.

Questions:

• $$\text{Sprinkler}\perp \text{Rain}$$?
• $$\text{Sprinkler}\perp \text{Rain}|\text{Wet season}$$?
• $$\text{Sprinkler}\perp \text{Rain}|\text{Wet pavement}$$?
• $$\text{Sprinkler}\perp \text{Rain}|\text{Wet season}, \text{Wet pavement}$$?

We need new graph vocabulary and conditional independence vocabulary.

Axiomatic characterisation of conditional independence. .

Theorem: For disjoint subsets $$\mathbf{W},\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{Z}\subseteq\mathbf{V}.$$

Then the relation $$\cdot\perp\cdot|\cdot$$ satisfies the following relations:

\begin{aligned} \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Z} |\mathbf{Y} & \Leftrightarrow & \mathbf{Z}\perp \mathbf{X} | \mathbf{Y} && \text{ Symmetry }&\\ \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y}\cup \mathbf{W} |\mathbf{Z} & \Rightarrow & \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y} \text{ and } \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{W} && \text{ Decomposition }&\\ \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y}\cup \mathbf{W} |\mathbf{Z} & \Rightarrow & \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{Z}\cup\mathbf{W} && \text{ Weak Union }&\\ \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y} |\mathbf{Z} \text{ and } \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{W}|\mathbf{Z}\cup \mathbf{Y} |\mathbf{Z} & \Rightarrow & \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y}\cup \mathbf{W}|\mathbf{Z} && \text{ Contraction }&\\ \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{Y} |\mathbf{Z}\cup \mathbf{W} \text{ and } \mathbf{X} \perp \mathbf{W} |\mathbf{Z}\cup \mathbf{Y} & \Rightarrow & \mathbf{X}\perp \mathbf{W}\cup\mathbf{Y} | \mathbf{Z} && \text{ Intersection } & (*)\\ \end{aligned}

(*) The Intersection axiom only holds for strictly positive distributions.

visual intuition of graph axioms

How can we relate this to the topology of the graph?

B in a fork path

B in a chain path

B in a collider path

Definition: A set $$\mathbf{S}$$ blocks a path $$\pi$$ from X to Y in a DAG $$\mathcal{G}$$ if either

1. There a node $$a\in\pi$$ which is not a collider on $$\pi$$ such that $$a\in\mathbf{S}$$

2. There a node $$b\in\pi$$ which is a collider on $$\pi$$ and $$\operatorname{descendants}(b)\cap\mathbf{S}=\emptyset$$

If a path is not blocked, it is active.

Definition: A set $$\mathbf{S}$$ d-separates two subsets of nodes $$\mathbf{X},\mathbf{X}\subseteq\mathcal{G}$$ if it blocks every path between any every pair of nodes $$(A,B)$$ such that $$A\in\mathbf{X},\, B\in\mathbf{Y}.$$

This looks ghastly and unintuitive, but we have to live with it because it is the shortest path to making simple statements about conditional independence DAGs without horrible circumlocutions, or starting from undirected graphs, which is tedious.

Theorem: . If the joint distribution of $$\mathbf{V}$$ factorises according to the DAG $$\mathbf{G}$$ then for two subsets of variables $$\mathbf{X}\perp\mathbf{Y}|\mathbf{S}$$ iff $$\mathbf{S}$$ d-separates $$\mathbf{X}$$ and $$\mathbf{Y}$$.

This puts us in a position to make more intuitive statements about the conditional independence relationships that we may read off the DAG.

Corollary: The DAG Markov property.

$X \perp \operatorname{descendants}(X)^C|\operatorname{parents}(X)$

Corollary: The DAG Markov blanket.

Define

$\operatorname{blanket}(X):= \operatorname{parents}(X)\cup \operatorname{children}(X)\cup \operatorname{coparents}(X)$

Then

$X\perp \operatorname{blanket}(X)^C|\operatorname{blanket}(X)$

## Causal interpretation

We have a DAG $$\mathcal{G}$$ and a set of variables $$\mathbf{V}$$ to which we wish to give a causal interpretation.

Assume

1. The $$\mathbf{V}$$ factors according to $$\mathcal{G}$$
2. $$X\rightarrow Y$$ means “causes” (The Causal Markov property)
3. We additionally assume faithfulness, that is, that $$X\leftrightsquigarrow Y$$ iff there is a path connecting them.

So, are we done?

Correlation tastes as good as causation Messerli (2012)

1. all the relevant variables are included in the graph.

[…] Eric Cornell, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001, told Reuters “I attribute essentially all my success to the very large amount of chocolate that I consume. Personally I feel that milk chocolate makes you stupid… dark chocolate is the way to go. It’s one thing if you want a medicine or chemistry Nobel Prize but if you want a physics Nobel Prize it pretty much has got to be dark chocolate.”

## do-calculus

Now we can discuss the relationship between conditional dependence and causal effect. This is the difference between, say,

$P(\text{Wet pavement}|\text{Sprinkler}=on)$

and

$P(\text{Wet pavement}|\operatorname{do}(\text{Sprinkler}=on)).$

This is called “truncated factorization” in the paper. $$\operatorname{do}$$-calculus and graph surgery give us rules that allow us to calculate dependencies under marginalisation for intervention distributions.

If we know $$P$$, this is relatively easy. Marginalize out all influences to the causal variable of interest, which we show graphically as wiping out a link.

Now suppose we are not given complete knowledge of $$P$$, but only some of the conditional distributions. (there are unobservable variables). This is the setup of observational studies and epidemiology and so on.

What variables must we know the conditional distributions of in order to know the conditional effect? That is, we call a set of covariates $$\mathbf{S}$$ an admissible set (or sufficient set) with respect to identifying the effect of $$X$$ on $$Y$$ iff

$p(Y=y|\operatorname{do}(X=x))=\sum_{\mathbf{s}} P(Y=y|X=x,\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{s}) P(\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{s}).$

Parent criterion
The parents of a cause are an admissible set .
Back-door criterion

A set $$\mathbf{S}$$ is sufficient if

1. $$\mathbf{S}\cap\operatorname{descendants}(X)=\emptyset$$
2. $$\mathbf{S}$$ blocks all paths which start with an arrow into $$\mathbf{X}$$

There are other criteria.

Causal properties of sufficient sets:

$P(Y=y|\operatorname{do}(X=x),S=s)=P(Y=y|X=x,S=s)$

Hence

$P(Y=y|\operatorname{do}(X=x),S=s)=\sum_sP(Y=y|X=x,S=s)P(S=s).$

More graph transformation rules! But this time for interventions.

Rule 1 (Insertion/deletion of observations)
$$P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),Z,W)=P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),W)$$ if $$Y$$ and $$Z$$ are d-separated by $$X\cup W$$ in $$\mathcal{G}^*$$, the graph obtained from $$\mathcal{G}$$ by removing all arrows pointing into variables in $$X$$.
Rule 2 (Action/observation exchange)
$$P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),\operatorname{do}(Z),W)=P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),Z,W)$$ if $$Y$$ and $$Z$$ are d-separated by $$X\cup W$$ in $$\mathcal{G}^{\dagger}$$, the graph obtained from $$\mathcal{G}$$ by removing all arrows pointing into variables in $$X$$ and all arrows pointing out of variables in $$Z.$$
Rule 3 (Insertion/deletion of actions)
$$P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),Z,W)=P(Y\mid \operatorname{do}(X),W)$$ if $$Y$$ and $$Z$$ are d-separated by $$X\cup W$$ in $$\mathcal{G}^{\ddagger}$$, the graph obtained from $$\mathcal{G}$$ by removing all arrows pointing into variables in $$X$$ (thus creating $$\mathcal{G}^*$$) and then removing all of the arrows pointing into variables in $$Z$$ that are not ancestors of any variable in $$W$$ in $$\mathcal{G}^*.$$

If some causal effect of a DAG is identifiable, then there exists a sequence of application of the do-calculus rules that can identify causal effects using only observational quantities

## Case study: Causal GPs

Here is a cute paper on causal Gaussian process regression. You need the supplement to the paper for it to make sense.

It uses Gaussian process regression to infer a time series model without worrying about discretization which is tricky in alternative approaches (e.g. Brodersen et al. (2015)).

1. (Consistency). Let $$Y$$ be the observed outcome, $$A \in \mathcal{C}$$ be the observed action, and $$Y[a]$$ be the potential outcome for action $$a \in \mathcal{C},$$ then: $$(Y \triangleq Y[a]) \mid A=a$$
2. (Continuous-Time NUC). For all times $$t$$ and all histories $$\mathcal{H}_{t^{-}}$$, the densities $$\lambda^{*}(t)$$, $$p^{*}\left(z_{y}, z_{a} \mid t\right),$$ and $$p^{*}\left(a \mid y, t, z_{a}\right)$$ do not depend on $$Y_{s}[$$ a $$]$$ for all times $$s>t$$ and all actions a.
3. (Non-Informative Measurement Times). For all times t and any history $$\mathcal{H}_{t^{-}}$$, the following holds: $$p^{*}\left(y \mid t, z_{y}=1\right) \mathrm{d} y=P\left(Y_{t} \in \mathrm{d} y \mid \mathcal{H}_{t^{-}}\right)$$

Schulam and Saria’s DAG

Notation decoder ring:

$(Y[a]|X):= P(Y|X,\operatorname{do}(A=a)$

What are unobserved $$u_1,u_2$$? Event and action models? Where are latent patience health states? $$u_2$$ only effects outcome measurements. Why is there a point process at all? Does each patient possess a true latent class?

How does causality flow through GP?

Why is the latent mean 5-dimensional?

## References

Aalen, Odd O, K Røysland, Jm Gran, R Kouyos, and T Lange. 2016. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 25 (5): 2294–314.
Aral, Sinan, Lev Muchnik, and Arun Sundararajan. 2009. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (51): 21544–49.
Arnold, Barry C., Enrique Castillo, and Jose M. Sarabia. 1999. Conditional Specification of Statistical Models. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bareinboim, Elias, and Judea Pearl. 2016. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (27): 7345–52.
Bareinboim, Elias, Jin Tian, and Judea Pearl. 2014. In AAAI, 2410–16.
Bloniarz, Adam, Hanzhong Liu, Cun-Hui Zhang, Jasjeet Sekhon, and Bin Yu. 2015. arXiv:1507.03652 [Math, Stat], July.
Bongers, Stephan, Patrick Forré, Jonas Peters, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Joris M. Mooij. 2020. arXiv:1611.06221 [Cs, Stat], October.
Bottou, Léon, Jonas Peters, Joaquin Quiñonero-Candela, Denis X. Charles, D. Max Chickering, Elon Portugaly, Dipankar Ray, Patrice Simard, and Ed Snelson. 2013. arXiv:1209.2355 [Cs, Math, Stat], July.
Brodersen, Kay H., Fabian Gallusser, Jim Koehler, Nicolas Remy, and Steven L. Scott. 2015. The Annals of Applied Statistics 9 (1): 247–74.
Bühlmann, Peter. 2013. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 77 (3): 357–70.
Bühlmann, Peter, Markus Kalisch, and Lukas Meier. 2014. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 1 (1): 255–78.
Bühlmann, Peter, Jonas Peters, Jan Ernest, and Marloes Maathuis. 2014.
Bühlmann, Peter, Philipp Rütimann, and Markus Kalisch. 2013. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 22 (5): 466–92.
Chen, B, and J Pearl. 2012. “Regression and Causation: A Critical Examination of Econometric Textbooks.”
Claassen, Tom, Joris M. Mooij, and Tom Heskes. 2014. arXiv:1411.1557 [Stat], November.
Colombo, Diego, Marloes H. Maathuis, Markus Kalisch, and Thomas S. Richardson. 2012. The Annals of Statistics 40 (1): 294–321.
De Luna, Xavier, Ingeborg Waernbaum, and Thomas S. Richardson. 2011. Biometrika, October, asr041.
Elwert, Felix. 2013. In Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, edited by Stephen L. Morgan, 245–73. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Ernest, Jan, and Peter Bühlmann. 2014. arXiv:1405.1868 [Stat], May.
Gelman, Andrew. 2010. American Journal of Sociology 117 (3): 955–66.
Hinton, Geoffrey E., Simon Osindero, and Kejie Bao. 2005. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 128–35. Citeseer.
Hoyer, Patrik O., Dominik Janzing, Joris M Mooij, Jonas Peters, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2009. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21, edited by D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou, 689–96. Curran Associates, Inc.
Janzing, Dominik, Joris Mooij, Kun Zhang, Jan Lemeire, Jakob Zscheischler, Povilas Daniušis, Bastian Steudel, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2012. Artificial Intelligence 182-183 (May): 1–31.
Janzing, Dominik, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 56 (10): 5168–94.
Jordan, Michael Irwin. 1999. Learning in Graphical Models. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jordan, Michael I., and Yair Weiss. 2002a. The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, 490–96.
———. 2002b. Handbook of Neural Networks and Brain Theory.
Kalisch, Markus, and Peter Bühlmann. 2007. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8 (May): 613–36.
Kennedy, Edward H. 2015. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1510.04740.
Kim, Jin H., and Judea Pearl. 1983. In IJCAI, 83:190–93. San Francisco, CA, USA: Citeseer.
Koller, Daphne, and Nir Friedman. 2009. Probabilistic Graphical Models : Principles and Techniques. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lauritzen, S. L., and D. J. Spiegelhalter. 1988. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 50 (2): 157–224.
Lauritzen, Steffen L. 1996. Graphical Models. Oxford Statistical Science Series. Clarendon Press.
———. 2000. In Complex Stochastic Systems, 63–107. CRC Press.
Li, Yunzhu, Antonio Torralba, Animashree Anandkumar, Dieter Fox, and Animesh Garg. 2020. arXiv:2007.00631 [Cs, Stat], July.
Maathuis, Marloes H., and Diego Colombo. 2013. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1307.5636.
Maathuis, Marloes H., Diego Colombo, Markus Kalisch, and Peter Bühlmann. 2010. Nature Methods 7 (4): 247–48.
Maathuis, Marloes H., Markus Kalisch, and Peter Bühlmann. 2009. The Annals of Statistics 37 (6A): 3133–64.
Marbach, Daniel, Robert J. Prill, Thomas Schaffter, Claudio Mattiussi, Dario Floreano, and Gustavo Stolovitzky. 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (14): 6286–91.
Meinshausen, Nicolai. 2018. In 2018 IEEE Data Science Workshop (DSW), 6–10.
Messerli, Franz H. 2012. New England Journal of Medicine 367 (16): 1562–64.
Mihalkova, Lilyana, and Raymond J. Mooney. 2007. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, 625–32. ACM.
Montanari, Andrea. 2011.
Mooij, Joris M., Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, Jakob Zscheischler, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2016. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17 (32): 1–102.
Morgan, Stephen L., and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, Kevin P. 2012. Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. 1 edition. Adaptive computation and machine learning series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nair, Suraj, Yuke Zhu, Silvio Savarese, and Li Fei-Fei. 2019. arXiv:1910.01751 [Cs, Stat], October.
Narendra, Tanmayee, Anush Sankaran, Deepak Vijaykeerthy, and Senthil Mani. 2018. arXiv:1811.04376 [Cs, Stat], November.
Nauta, Meike, Doina Bucur, and Christin Seifert. 2019. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 1 (1): 312–40.
Neapolitan, Richard E. 2003. Learning Bayesian Networks. Vol. 38. Prentice Hal, Paperback.
Newsom, Jason, author. 2009. “Estimation of the Causal Effects of Time-Varying Exposures.” In Longitudinal Data Analysis, 1st edition, 553:599. Routledge,.
Ng, Ignavier, Shengyu Zhu, Zhitang Chen, and Zhuangyan Fang. 2019. In Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems.
Noel, Hans, and Brendan Nyhan. 2011. Social Networks 33 (3): 211–18.
Pearl, Judea. 1982. In Proceedings of the Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 133–36. AAAI’82. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: AAAI Press.
———. 1986. Artificial Intelligence 29 (3): 241–88.
———. 1998. In Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision, edited by Philippe Smets, 367–89. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
———. 2008. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Rev. 2. print., 12. [Dr.]. The Morgan Kaufmann series in representation and reasoning. San Francisco, Calif: Kaufmann.
———. 2009a. Statistics Surveys 3: 96–146.
———. 2009b. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Jonas, Peter Bühlmann, and Nicolai Meinshausen. 2015. arXiv:1501.01332 [Stat], January.
Raginsky, M. 2011. In 2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 958–65.
Richardson, Thomas, and Peter Spirtes. 2002. Annals of Statistics 30 (4): 962–1030.
Robins, James M. 1997. In Latent Variable Modeling and Applications to Causality, edited by Maia Berkane, 69–117. Lecture Notes in Statistics. New York, NY: Springer.
Rubenstein, Paul K., Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers, Joris M. Mooij, Dominik Janzing, Moritz Grosse-Wentrup, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. arXiv:1707.00819 [Cs, Stat], July.
Rubin, Donald B, and Richard P Waterman. 2006. Statistical Science 21 (2): 206–22.
Sauer, Brian, and Tyler J. VanderWeele. 2013. Use of Directed Acyclic Graphs. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).
Schulam, Peter, and Suchi Saria. 2017. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 1696–706. NIPS’17. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc.
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla, and Edward McFowland III. 2016. arXiv:1607.06565 [Physics, Stat], July.
Shalizi, Cosma Rohilla, and Andrew C. Thomas. 2011. Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2): 211–39.
Shpitser, Ilya, and Judea Pearl. 2008. “Complete Identification Methods for the Causal Hierarchy.” The Journal of Machine Learning Research 9: 1941–79.
Shpitser, Ilya, and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen. 2014. arXiv:1411.2127 [Stat], November.
Shrier, Ian, and Robert W. Platt. 2008. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8 (1): 70.
Smith, David A., and Jason Eisner. 2008. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 145–56. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Smith, Gordon C. S., and Jill P. Pell. 2003. BMJ 327 (7429): 1459–61.
Spirtes, Peter, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines. 2001. Causation, Prediction, and Search. Second Edition. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. The MIT Press.
Subbaswamy, Adarsh, Peter Schulam, and Suchi Saria. 2019. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 3118–27. PMLR.
Textor, Johannes, and Maciej Liśkiewicz. 2011. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 681–88. UAI’11. Arlington, Virginia, USA: AUAI Press.
Vansteelandt, Stijn, Maarten Bekaert, and Gerda Claeskens. 2012. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 21 (1): 7–30.
Weichwald, Sebastian, and Jonas Peters. 2020. arXiv:2002.06060 [q-Bio, Stat], July.
Wright, Sewall. 1934. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5 (3): 161–215.
Yedidia, J.S., W.T. Freeman, and Y. Weiss. 2003. In Exploring Artificial Intelligence in the New Millennium, edited by G. Lakemeyer and B. Nebel, 239–36. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Zander, Benito van der, and Maciej Liśkiewicz. 2016. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 3315–21. AAAI’16. Phoenix, Arizona: AAAI Press.
Zander, Benito van der, Maciej Liśkiewicz, and Johannes Textor. 2014. In Proceedings of the UAI 2014 Conference on Causal Inference: Learning and Prediction - Volume 1274, 11–24. CI’14. Aachen, DEU: CEUR-WS.org.
Zander, Benito van der, Johannes Textor, and Maciej Liskiewicz. 2015. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 3243–49. IJCAI’15. Buenos Aires, Argentina: AAAI Press.
Zhang, Kun, Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2012. arXiv:1202.3775 [Cs, Stat], February.

1. Terminology confusion: This is orthogonal to subjective probability.↩︎

### No comments yet. Why not leave one?

GitHub-flavored Markdown & a sane subset of HTML is supported.