A comparison of three Occam’s razors for Markovian causal models

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The framework of causal Bayes nets, currently influential in several scientific disciplines, provides a rich formalism to study the connection between causality and probability from an epistemological perspective. This article compares three assumptions in the literature that seem to constrain the connection between causality and probability in the style of Occam's razor. The trio includes two minimality assumptions—one formulated by Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines (SGS) and the other due to Pearl—and the more well-known faithfulness or stability assumption. In terms of logical strength, it is fairly obvious that the three form a sequence of increasingly stronger assumptions. The focus of this article, however, is to investigate the nature of their relative strength. The comparative analysis reveals an important sense in which Pearl's minimality assumption is as strong as the faithfulness assumption and identifies a useful condition under which it is as safe as SGS's relatively secure minimality assumption. Both findings have notable implications for the theory and practice of causal inference.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423-448
Number of pages26
JournalBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Volume64
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2012

Fingerprint

Minimality
Causal Model
Faithfulness
Causality
Causal
Causal Inference
Pearl
Bayes Nets
Formalism
Trio
Epistemological
Scientific Discipline
Logic
Comparative Analysis

Cite this

@article{e5222f7075b84ba597cfb692b8e68811,
title = "A comparison of three Occam’s razors for Markovian causal models",
abstract = "The framework of causal Bayes nets, currently influential in several scientific disciplines, provides a rich formalism to study the connection between causality and probability from an epistemological perspective. This article compares three assumptions in the literature that seem to constrain the connection between causality and probability in the style of Occam's razor. The trio includes two minimality assumptions—one formulated by Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines (SGS) and the other due to Pearl—and the more well-known faithfulness or stability assumption. In terms of logical strength, it is fairly obvious that the three form a sequence of increasingly stronger assumptions. The focus of this article, however, is to investigate the nature of their relative strength. The comparative analysis reveals an important sense in which Pearl's minimality assumption is as strong as the faithfulness assumption and identifies a useful condition under which it is as safe as SGS's relatively secure minimality assumption. Both findings have notable implications for the theory and practice of causal inference.",
author = "Jiji ZHANG",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bjps/axs005",
language = "English",
volume = "64",
pages = "423--448",
journal = "British Journal for the Philosophy of Science",
issn = "0007-0882",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

A comparison of three Occam’s razors for Markovian causal models. / ZHANG, Jiji.

In: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 64, No. 2, 01.06.2012, p. 423-448.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of three Occam’s razors for Markovian causal models

AU - ZHANG, Jiji

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - The framework of causal Bayes nets, currently influential in several scientific disciplines, provides a rich formalism to study the connection between causality and probability from an epistemological perspective. This article compares three assumptions in the literature that seem to constrain the connection between causality and probability in the style of Occam's razor. The trio includes two minimality assumptions—one formulated by Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines (SGS) and the other due to Pearl—and the more well-known faithfulness or stability assumption. In terms of logical strength, it is fairly obvious that the three form a sequence of increasingly stronger assumptions. The focus of this article, however, is to investigate the nature of their relative strength. The comparative analysis reveals an important sense in which Pearl's minimality assumption is as strong as the faithfulness assumption and identifies a useful condition under which it is as safe as SGS's relatively secure minimality assumption. Both findings have notable implications for the theory and practice of causal inference.

AB - The framework of causal Bayes nets, currently influential in several scientific disciplines, provides a rich formalism to study the connection between causality and probability from an epistemological perspective. This article compares three assumptions in the literature that seem to constrain the connection between causality and probability in the style of Occam's razor. The trio includes two minimality assumptions—one formulated by Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines (SGS) and the other due to Pearl—and the more well-known faithfulness or stability assumption. In terms of logical strength, it is fairly obvious that the three form a sequence of increasingly stronger assumptions. The focus of this article, however, is to investigate the nature of their relative strength. The comparative analysis reveals an important sense in which Pearl's minimality assumption is as strong as the faithfulness assumption and identifies a useful condition under which it is as safe as SGS's relatively secure minimality assumption. Both findings have notable implications for the theory and practice of causal inference.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/728

U2 - 10.1093/bjps/axs005

DO - 10.1093/bjps/axs005

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 64

SP - 423

EP - 448

JO - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

JF - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

SN - 0007-0882

IS - 2

ER -