Reply to "Comment on 'Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection'"

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.02829v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:47:47 GMT
• Title: Reply to "Comment on 'Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection'"
• Authors: Patrick Daley, Kevin J. Resch, Robert W. Spekkens,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Our article described an experiment that adjudicates between different causal accounts of Bell inequality violations by a comparison of their predictive power, finding that certain types of models that are structurally radical but parametrically conservative, of which a class of superdeterministic models are an example, overfit the data relative to models that are structurally conservative but parametrically radical in the sense of endorsing an intrinsically quantum generalization of the framework of causal modelling. In their comment (arXiv:2206.10619), Hance and Hossenfelder argue that we have misrepresented the purpose of superdeterministic models. We here 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. Their confusion on this point seems to have arisen in part from the fact that we characterized superdeterministic models within a causal modelling framework and from the fact that we referred to this framework as "classical" in order to contrast it with an intrinsically quantum alternative. In this reply, therefore, we take the opportunity to clarify these points. They also claim that if one is adjudicating between a pair of models, where one model can account for strictly more operational statistics than the other, the first model will tend to overfit the data relative to the second. Because this model inclusion relation can arise for pairs of models in a reductionist heirarchy, they conclude that overfitting should not be taken as evidence against the first model. We point out here that, contrary to this claim, one does not expect overfitting to arise generically in cases of model inclusion, so that it is indeed sometimes appropriate to consider overfitting as a criterion for adjudicating between such models.

Related papers

• The Interpolating Information Criterion for Overparameterized Models [49.283527214211446]
  We show that the Interpolating Information Criterion is a measure of model quality that naturally incorporates the choice of prior into the model selection. Our new information criterion accounts for prior misspecification, geometric and spectral properties of the model, and is numerically consistent with known empirical and theoretical behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-15T12:09:54Z)
• Comment on "Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection" [0.0]
  Daley et al claim that some superdeterministic models are disfavoured against standard quantum mechanics. We argue that overfitting, while better as a measure of finetuning than other measures given in the literature, does not necessarily indicate a model is universally bad.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-21T14:00:16Z)
• Estimation of Bivariate Structural Causal Models by Variational Gaussian Process Regression Under Likelihoods Parametrised by Normalising Flows [74.85071867225533]
  Causal mechanisms can be described by structural causal models. One major drawback of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence is its lack of explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-06T14:52:58Z)
• Transport-based Counterfactual Models [0.0]
  State-of-the-art models to compute counterfactuals are either unrealistic or unfeasible. We address the problem of designing realistic and feasible counterfactuals in the absence of a causal model. We argue that optimal transport theory defines relevant transport-based counterfactual models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-30T07:28:19Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Causal Expectation-Maximisation [70.45873402967297]
  We show that causal inference is NP-hard even in models characterised by polytree-shaped graphs. We introduce the causal EM algorithm to reconstruct the uncertainty about the latent variables from data about categorical manifest variables. We argue that there appears to be an unnoticed limitation to the trending idea that counterfactual bounds can often be computed without knowledge of the structural equations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T10:25:13Z)
• Structural Causal Models Are (Solvable by) Credal Networks [70.45873402967297]
  Causal inferences can be obtained by standard algorithms for the updating of credal nets. This contribution should be regarded as a systematic approach to represent structural causal models by credal networks. Experiments show that approximate algorithms for credal networks can immediately be used to do causal inference in real-size problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-02T11:19:36Z)
• Superdeterministic hidden-variables models I: nonequilibrium and signalling [0.0]
  We first give an overview of superdeterminism and discuss various criticisms of it raised in the literature. We take up Bell's intuitive criticism that these models are conspiratorial'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-26T15:49:34Z)
• 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)
• The role of (non)contextuality in Bell's theorems from the perspective of an operational modeling framework [0.0]
  It is shown that noncontextuality is the most general property of an operational model that blocks replication of QM predictions. It is shown that the construction of convex hulls of finite ensembles of OD model instances is (mathematically) equivalent to the traditional hidden variables approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-23T20:45:25Z)

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.