Abstract

Acyclic directed mixed graphs (ADMGs) are the graphs used by Pearl (Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) for causal effect identification. Recently, alternative acyclic directed mixed graphs (aADMGs) have been proposed by Peña (Proceedings of the 32nd conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 577–586, 2016) for causal effect identification in domains with additive noise. Since the ADMG and the aADMG of the domain at hand may encode different model assumptions, it may be that the causal effect of interest is identifiable in one but not in the other. Causal effect identification in ADMGs is well understood. In this paper, we introduce a sound algorithm for identifying arbitrary causal effects from aADMGs. We show that the algorithm follows from a calculus similar to Pearl’s do-calculus. Then, we turn our attention to Andersson–Madigan–Perlman chain graphs, which are a subclass of aADMGs, and propose a factorization for the positive discrete probability distributions that are Markovian with respect to these chain graphs. We also develop an algorithm to perform maximum likelihood estimation of the factors in the factorization.

Highlights

  • Undirected graphs (UGs), bidirected graphs (BGs), and directed and acyclic graphs (DAGs) have extensively been studied as representations of independence models

  • We present a first attempt to fill in this gap by developing a factorization for the positive discrete probability distributions that are Markovian with respect to AMP CGs, which recall are a subclass of alternative acyclic directed mixed graphs (aADMGs)

  • Acyclic directed mixed graphs (ADMGs) represents marginal independence, in aADMGs it represents conditional independence given the rest of the error nodes. This means that the ADMG and the aADMG of the domain at hand may encode different assumptions, which may make a difference for causal effect identification, i.e., the effect may be identifiable in one model but not in the other

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Undirected graphs (UGs), bidirected graphs (BGs), and directed and acyclic graphs (DAGs) have extensively been studied as representations of independence models. The ADMG and the aADMG of the domain at hand may encode different model assumptions This may imply that one allows causal effect identification, whereas the other does not. Note that the aADMG lacks the edge V1 − V2 which, as mentioned above, represents the assumption that U1 and U2 are independent given U3 in the domain at hand This implies that we can block all non-causal paths from V1 to V2 in the domain at hand by conditioning on V3 , since V3 determines U3 due to the additive noise assumption. Peña and Bendtsen (2017) considered aADMGs for causal effect identification They presented a calculus similar to Pearl’s do-calculus (Pearl 2009; Shpitser and Pearl 2006), and a decomposition of the density function represented by an aADMG that is similar to the Q-decomposition by Tian and Pearl (2002a, b). The paper ends with a discussion on follow-up questions worth investigating

Preliminaries
Causal interpretation of aADMGs
Identification by decomposition
Identification by calculus
Factorization property for discrete AMP CGs
Markov properties
Factor estimation
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call