Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

When does the ID algorithm fail?

Published 7 Jul 2023 in stat.ME, cs.AI, and cs.LG | (2307.03750v1)

Abstract: The ID algorithm solves the problem of identification of interventional distributions of the form p(Y | do(a)) in graphical causal models, and has been formulated in a number of ways [12, 9, 6]. The ID algorithm is sound (outputs the correct functional of the observed data distribution whenever p(Y | do(a)) is identified in the causal model represented by the input graph), and complete (explicitly flags as a failure any input p(Y | do(a)) whenever this distribution is not identified in the causal model represented by the input graph). The reference [9] provides a result, the so called "hedge criterion" (Corollary 3), which aims to give a graphical characterization of situations when the ID algorithm fails to identify its input in terms of a structure in the input graph called the hedge. While the ID algorithm is, indeed, a sound and complete algorithm, and the hedge structure does arise whenever the input distribution is not identified, Corollary 3 presented in [9] is incorrect as stated. In this note, I outline the modern presentation of the ID algorithm, discuss a simple counterexample to Corollary 3, and provide a number of graphical characterizations of the ID algorithm failing to identify its input distribution.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (13)
  1. Robin J. Evans. Margins of discrete bayesian networks. Annals of Statistics, 46:2623–2656, 2018.
  2. Steffen L. Lauritzen. Graphical Models. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1996.
  3. A potential outcomes calculus for identifying conditional path-specific effects. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2019.
  4. Judea Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Morgan and Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1988.
  5. Judea Pearl. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2009.
  6. Nested Markov properties for acyclic directed mixed graphs. Annals of Statistics, 51(1):334–361, 2023.
  7. James M. Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods – application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modeling, 7:1393–1512, 1986.
  8. Acyclic linear sems obey the nested markov property. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-18), 2018.
  9. Identification of joint interventional distributions in recursive semi-Markovian causal models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06). AAAI Press, Palo Alto, 2006.
  10. Multivariate counterfactual systems and causal graphical models. In Probabilistic and Causal Inference: The Works of Judea Pearl, pages 813–852, 2022.
  11. The proximal ID algorithm. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06818, 2021.
  12. On the testable implications of causal models with hidden variables. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-02), volume 18, pages 519–527. AUAI Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 2002.
  13. Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. Technical Report R-150, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1990.
Citations (4)

Summary

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.