Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Bayesian Approach to Learning Causal Networks (1302.4958v2)

Published 20 Feb 2013 in cs.AI

Abstract: Whereas acausal Bayesian networks represent probabilistic independence, causal Bayesian networks represent causal relationships. In this paper, we examine Bayesian methods for learning both types of networks. Bayesian methods for learning acausal networks are fairly well developed. These methods often employ assumptions to facilitate the construction of priors, including the assumptions of parameter independence, parameter modularity, and likelihood equivalence. We show that although these assumptions also can be appropriate for learning causal networks, we need additional assumptions in order to learn causal networks. We introduce two sufficient assumptions, called {em mechanism independence} and {em component independence}. We show that these new assumptions, when combined with parameter independence, parameter modularity, and likelihood equivalence, allow us to apply methods for learning acausal networks to learn causal networks.

Citations (213)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a Bayesian framework that adapts acausal network methodologies to causal networks using mechanism and component independence.
  • It demonstrates how integrating experimental data with observational insights strengthens causal inference and predictive interventions.
  • The approach emphasizes parameter modularity and likelihood equivalence, ensuring consistent and reliable causal discovery in complex systems.

A Bayesian Approach to Learning Causal Networks

This paper, authored by David Heckerman, presents an investigation into Bayesian methodologies for learning both acausal and causal Bayesian networks. While Bayesian methods for learning acausal networks are well-studied, the learning of causal networks necessitates additional assumptions. This paper extends existing techniques by introducing the concepts of mechanism independence and component independence as crucial assumptions necessary to appropriately adapt Bayesian approaches for acausal network learning to causal network contexts.

The paper begins by distinguishing between acausal and causal Bayesian networks. Acausal Bayesian networks function as representations of probabilistic independence among variables, while causal Bayesian networks capture the direct causal influences. The distinction is crucial because causal interpretations allow for predictive manipulations through interventions, which is not feasible with acausal networks alone.

Heckerman’s central contributions include a framework that makes possible the adaptation of acausal network learning methods to causal contexts, under specific conditions. The paper elaborates on two sufficient assumptions — mechanism independence and component independence — that bridge this methodological gap. Mechanism independence allows causal mechanisms to persist unaffected by interventions, while component independence posits the independence of mechanism components, facilitating the use of Bayesian techniques typically employed for acausal networks.

The thorough review of Bayesian methods for acausal networks establishes the basis for this extension. The Bayesian framework allows for the incorporation of domain knowledge alongside empirical data to construct network models that reflect underlying probability distributions. Through parameter independence and modularity, various components of these networks are rendered independently learnable.

A significant portion of the paper extends these principles to learning parameters within influence diagrams — a formalism primarily associated with decision theory. Influence diagrams are more general than Bayesian networks and incorporate decision nodes (choices), chance nodes (uncertainties), and utility nodes (preferences). However, when applied to causal networks, one must address the dependencies between causal mechanisms to accurately capture causal structures from observed data.

The paper delineates scenarios for using non-experimental (observational) and experimental data within this framework. It highlights the enhanced utility of experimental data in verifying causal direction, a capability notably absent in pure acausal models. The assurance of obtaining valid conclusions from interventions depends heavily on these outlined assumptions.

On assessing structures, the adoption of parameter modularity, parameter independence, and likelihood equivalence underpins prior-parametrization methodology. The paper articulates that likeness equivalence is crucial, as it expresses a situation where equivalent causal structures produce identical observations for the variables to which they pertain. This assumption ensures that even when two different structures could result in similar probability distributions for observed data, the relationship between structures and parameters remains consistent.

Future expansions of this work could consider the implications of deviations from these assumptions and explore the robustness of inferred causal models under variable compliance with the outlined framework. The methodologies could potentially enhance causal discovery applications across complex systems where interventions are feasible, under significant constraints related to the assumptions made herein.

In conclusion, Heckerman's paper significantly advances the integration of causal understanding within Bayesian statistical learning frameworks, emphasizing the methodological adaptations necessary to navigate the complexities inherent to causal inference. The practical and theoretical implications of this work extend potential applications in advanced AI systems, biomedical research, and other domains requiring causal insights from statistical data.