Appropriate causal models and the stability of causation

DOI10.1017/S1755020315000246zbMATH Open1383.03026arXiv1412.3518OpenAlexW2951762618MaRDI QIDQ2804474FDOQ2804474

Joseph Y. Halpern

Publication date: 29 April 2016

Published in: The Review of Symbolic Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: Causal models defined in terms of structural equations have proved to be quite a powerful way of representing knowledge regarding causality. However, a number of authors have given examples that seem to show that the Halpern-Pearl (HP) definition of causality gives intuitively unreasonable answers. Here it is shown that, for each of these examples, we can give two stories consistent with the description in the example, such that intuitions regarding causality are quite different for each story. By adding additional variables, we can disambiguate the stories. Moreover, in the resulting causal models, the HP definition of causality gives the intuitively correct answer. It is also shown that, by adding extra variables, a modification to the original HP definition made to deal with an example of Hopkins and Pearl may not be necessary. Given how much can be done by adding extra variables, there might be a concern that the notion of causality is somewhat unstable. Can adding extra variables in a "conservative" way (i.e., maintaining all the relations between the variables in the original model) cause the answer to the question "Is X=x a cause of Y=y" to alternate between "yes" and "no"? It is shown that we can have such alternation infinitely often, but if we take normality into consideration, we cannot. Indeed, under appropriate normality assumptions. adding an extra variable can change the answer from "yes" to "no", but after that, it cannot cannot change back to "yes".

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3518

Recommendations

• Actual causation and the art of modeling
• Modeling causality
• Causal Models and the Ambiguity of Counterfactuals
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1493045
• Causality. Models, reasoning, and inference
• Structural equation modeling, causal inference and statistical adequacy
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 206015
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3856268
• Dynamic modelling and causality

zbMATH Keywords

structural equationscausal modelcausality stabilityHalpern-Pearl definition of causalitymodel normality

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Knowledge representation (68T30) Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change) (03B42) Other applications of logic (03B80)

Cites Work

• Graded Causation and Defaults
• Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part I: Causes
• Complexity results for structure-based causality.
• Explaining counterexamples using causality
• Causal Powers
• Actual causation: a stone soup essay
• Actual causation and simple voting scenarios

Cited In (9)

• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Causal Models and the Ambiguity of Counterfactuals
• Is regression adjustment supported by the Neyman model for causal inference?
• Causes and explanations in the structural-model approach: Tractable cases
• Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part II: Explanations
• Combining experts' causal judgments
• From causes for database queries to repairs and model-based diagnosis and back
• Normal causes for normal effects: reinvigorating the correspondence hypothesis about judgments of actual causation

This page was built for publication: Appropriate causal models and the stability of causation

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2804474)