Combining the Causal Judgments of Experts with Possibly Different Focus Areas

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10131v1
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:28:08 GMT
• Title: Combining the Causal Judgments of Experts with Possibly Different Focus Areas
• Abstract summary: In many real-world settings, a decision-maker must combine information provided by different experts in order to decide on an effective policy. Alrajeh, Chockler, and Halpern showed how to combine causal models that are compatible in the sense that, for variables that appear in both models, the experts agree on the causal structure.
• Score: 15.648061765081259
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In many real-world settings, a decision-maker must combine information provided by different experts in order to decide on an effective policy. Alrajeh, Chockler, and Halpern [2018] showed how to combine causal models that are compatible in the sense that, for variables that appear in both models, the experts agree on the causal structure. In this work we show how causal models can be combined in cases where the experts might disagree on the causal structure for variables that appear in both models due to having different focus areas. We provide a new formal definition of compatibility of models in this setting and show how compatible models can be combined. We also consider the complexity of determining whether models are compatible. We believe that the notions defined in this work are of direct relevance to many practical decision making scenarios that come up in natural, social, and medical science settings.

Related papers

• Relational Structural Causal Models [52.818153111470394]
  We develop relational structural causal models, extending structural causal models to settings where objects and their relations vary.<n>We propose relational neural causal models, a provably correct approach that outperforms non-relational baselines on simulated traffic scenes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T18:54:06Z)
• From Black-box to Causal-box: Towards Building More Interpretable Models [57.23201263629627]
  We introduce the notion of causal interpretability, which formalizes when counterfactual queries can be evaluated from a specific class of models.<n>We derive a complete graphical criterion that determines whether a given model architecture supports a given counterfactual query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T20:03:18Z)
• Canonical Representations of Markovian Structural Causal Models: A Framework for Counterfactual Reasoning [0.0]
  Counterfactual reasoning aims at answering contrary-to-fact questions like ''Would have Alice recovered had she taken aspirin?''<n>We introduce counterfactual models, also called canonical representations of structural causal models.<n>Compared to structural causal models, it allows to specify many counterfactual conceptions without altering the observational and interventional constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T09:13:02Z)
• Reply to "Comment on 'Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection'" [0.0]
  In their comment, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that we have misrepresented the purpose of superdeterministic models. We dispute this claim by recalling the different classes of superdeterministic models we defined in our article and our conclusions regarding which of these are disfavoured by our experimental results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-03T20:47:47Z)
• Counterfactual Image Editing [54.21104691749547]
  Counterfactual image editing is an important task in generative AI, which asks how an image would look if certain features were different. We formalize the counterfactual image editing task using formal language, modeling the causal relationships between latent generative factors and images. We develop an efficient algorithm to generate counterfactual images by leveraging neural causal models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T20:55:39Z)
• Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines [64.86459157191346]
  Rule-based models, such as decision trees, appeal to practitioners due to their interpretable nature. However, the learning algorithms that produce such models are often vulnerable to spurious associations and thus, they are not guaranteed to extract causally-relevant insights. We propose Invariant Causal Set Covering Machines, an extension of the classical Set Covering Machine algorithm for conjunctions/disjunctions of binary-valued rules that provably avoids spurious associations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T20:52:01Z)
• On the Interventional Kullback-Leibler Divergence [11.57430292133273]
  We introduce the Interventional Kullback-Leibler divergence to quantify both structural and distributional differences between causal models. We propose a sufficient condition on the intervention targets to identify subsets of observed variables on which the models provably agree or disagree.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T17:03:29Z)
• Partial Order in Chaos: Consensus on Feature Attributions in the Rashomon Set [50.67431815647126]
  Post-hoc global/local feature attribution methods are being progressively employed to understand machine learning models. We show that partial orders of local/global feature importance arise from this methodology. We show that every relation among features present in these partial orders also holds in the rankings provided by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T02:53:14Z)
• A general framework for cyclic and fine-tuned causal models and their compatibility with space-time [2.0305676256390934]
  Causal modelling is a tool for generating causal explanations of observed correlations. Existing frameworks for quantum causality tend to focus on acyclic causal structures that are not fine-tuned. Cyclist causal models can be used to model physical processes involving feedback. Cyclist causal models may also be relevant in exotic solutions of general relativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T18:00:08Z)
• Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell inequality violations via statistical model selection [0.0]
  Bell inequalities follow from a set of seemingly natural assumptions about how to provide a causal model of a Bell experiment. Two types of causal models that modify some of these assumptions have been proposed. We seek to adjudicate between these alternatives based on their predictive power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-30T19:33:02Z)
• A Twin Neural Model for Uplift [59.38563723706796]
  Uplift is a particular case of conditional treatment effect modeling. We propose a new loss function defined by leveraging a connection with the Bayesian interpretation of the relative risk. We show our proposed method is competitive with the state-of-the-art in simulation setting and on real data from large scale randomized experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T16:02:39Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Collaborative Filtering under Model Uncertainty [2.538209532048867]
  We use the definition of predictive multiplicity by Marx, Pin Calmon, and Ustun to examine different variations of this model. Most of these models produce very similar results in terms of discrepancy and ambiguity for the availability and only in some cases the availability sets differ significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-23T22:09:31Z)
• Causal Discovery in Physical Systems from Videos [123.79211190669821]
  Causal discovery is at the core of human cognition. We consider the task of causal discovery from videos in an end-to-end fashion without supervision on the ground-truth graph structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-01T17:29:57Z)
• Combining Experts' Causal Judgments [15.169168801732505]
  We consider how experts' causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being emphcompatible, and show how compatible causal models can be merged. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T16:41:07Z)
• A Critical View of the Structural Causal Model [89.43277111586258]
  We show that one can identify the cause and the effect without considering their interaction at all. We propose a new adversarial training method that mimics the disentangled structure of the causal model. Our multidimensional method outperforms the literature methods on both synthetic and real world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-23T22:52:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.