Resolution of Simpson's paradox via the common cause principle (2403.00957v2)
Abstract: Simpson's paradox is an obstacle to establishing a probabilistic association between two events $a_1$ and $a_2$, given the third (lurking) random variable $B$. We focus on scenarios when the random variables $A$ (which combines $a_1$, $a_2$, and their complements) and $B$ have a common cause $C$ that need not be observed. Alternatively, we can assume that $C$ screens out $A$ from $B$. For such cases, the correct association between $a_1$ and $a_2$ is to be defined via conditioning over $C$. This setup generalizes the original Simpson's paradox: now its two contradicting options refer to two particular and different causes $C$. We show that if $B$ and $C$ are binary and $A$ is quaternary (the minimal and the most widespread situation for the Simpson's paradox), the conditioning over any binary common cause $C$ establishes the same direction of association between $a_1$ and $a_2$ as the conditioning over $B$ in the original formulation of the paradox. Thus, for the minimal common cause, one should choose the option of Simpson's paradox that assumes conditioning over $B$ and not its marginalization. The same conclusion is reached when Simpson's paradox is formulated via 3 continuous Gaussian variables: within the minimal formulation of the paradox (3 scalar continuous variables $A_1$, $A_2$, and $B$), one should choose the option with the conditioning over $B$.
- K. Pearson, A. Lee, and L. Bramley-Moore, “Vi. mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.—vi. genetic (reproductive) selection: Inheritance of fertility in man, and of fecundity in thoroughbred racehorses,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, no. 192, pp. 257–330, 1899.
- G. U. Yule, “Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics,” Biometrika, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 121–134, 1903.
- E. H. Simpson, “The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 238–241, 1951.
- C. R. Blyth, “On simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 67, no. 338, pp. 364–366, 1972.
- D. V. Lindley and M. R. Novick, “The role of exchangeability in inference,” The annals of statistics, pp. 45–58, 1981.
- B. Barigelli and R. Scozzafava, “Remarks on the role of conditional probability in data exploration,” Statistics & probability letters, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 15–18, 1984.
- B. Barigelli, “Data exploration and conditional probability,” IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1764–1766, 1994.
- ——, “Comment: Understanding simpson’s paradox,” The American Statistician, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2014.
- M. A. Hernán, D. Clayton, and N. Keiding, “The simpson’s paradox unraveled,” International journal of epidemiology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 780–785, 2011.
- D. R. Appleton, J. M. French, and M. P. Vanderpump, “Ignoring a covariate: An example of simpson’s paradox,” The American Statistician, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 340–341, 1996.
- T. W. Armistead, “Resurrecting the third variable: A critique of pearl’s causal analysis of simpson’s paradox,” The American Statistician, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014.
- J. E. Cohen, “An uncertainty principle in demography and the unisex issue,” The American Statistician, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 1986.
- T. Rudas, “Informative allocation and consistent treatment selection,” Statistical Methodology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 323–337, 2010.
- A. Hovhannisyan and A. E. Allahverdyan, “simpsons-paradox.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/a-hovhannisian/simpsons_paradox
- M. Kocaoglu, S. Shakkottai, A. G. Dimakis, C. Caramanis, and S. Vishwanath, “Applications of common entropy for causal inference,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 17 514–17 525, 2020.
- A. Hovhannisyan and A. E. Allahverdyan, “The most likely common cause,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17557, 2023.
- J. D. Norton. (2023) Paradoxes from probability theory: Independence. [Online]. Available: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/paradox/chapters/probability_from_independence/probability_from_independence.html
- J. Sprenger and N. Weinberger, “Simpson’s Paradox,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2021 ed., E. N. Zalta, Ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021.