Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
158 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 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

Resolution of Simpson's paradox via the common cause principle (2403.00957v2)

Published 1 Mar 2024 in stat.ME, cs.AI, math.PR, physics.data-an, and stat.AP

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 $B$.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (18)
  1. 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.
  2. G. U. Yule, “Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics,” Biometrika, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 121–134, 1903.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. D. V. Lindley and M. R. Novick, “The role of exchangeability in inference,” The annals of statistics, pp. 45–58, 1981.
  6. 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.
  7. B. Barigelli, “Data exploration and conditional probability,” IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1764–1766, 1994.
  8. ——, “Comment: Understanding simpson’s paradox,” The American Statistician, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2014.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. J. E. Cohen, “An uncertainty principle in demography and the unisex issue,” The American Statistician, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 1986.
  13. T. Rudas, “Informative allocation and consistent treatment selection,” Statistical Methodology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 323–337, 2010.
  14. A. Hovhannisyan and A. E. Allahverdyan, “simpsons-paradox.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/a-hovhannisian/simpsons_paradox
  15. 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.
  16. A. Hovhannisyan and A. E. Allahverdyan, “The most likely common cause,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17557, 2023.
  17. 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
  18. 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.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com