Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference

Joseph RAMSEY, Jiji ZHANG, Peter SPIRTES

    Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsConference paper (refereed)Researchpeer-review

    91 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Most causal inference algorithms in the literature (e.g., Pearl (2000), Spirtes et al. (2000), Heckerman et al. (1999)) exploit an assumption usually referred to as the causal Faithfulness or Stability condition. In this paper, we highlight two components of the condition used in constraint-based algorithms, which we call "Adjacency-Faithfulness" and "Orientation-Faithfulness". We point out that assuming Adjacency-Faithfulness is true, it is in principle possible to test the validity of Orientation-Faithfulness. Based on this observation, we explore the consequence of making only the Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. We show that the familiar PC algorithm has to be modified to be (asymptotically) correct under the weaker, Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. Roughly the modified algorithm, called Conservative PC (CPC), checks whether Orientation-Faithfulness holds in the orientation phase, and if not, avoids drawing certain causal conclusions the PC algorithm would draw. However, if the stronger, standard causal Faithfulness condition actually obtains, the CPC algorithm is shown to output the same pattern as the PC algorithm does in the large sample limit. We also present a simulation study showing that the CPC algorithm runs almost as fast as the PC algorithm, and outputs significantly fewer false causal arrowheads than the PC algorithm does on realistic sample sizes. We end our paper by discussing how score-based algorithms such as GES perform when the Adjacency-Faithfulness but not the standard causal Faithfulness condition holds, and how to extend our work to the FCI algorithm, which allows for the possibility of latent variables.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationProceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006)
    PublisherAUAI Press
    Pages401-408
    Number of pages8
    ISBN (Print)974903922
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2006

    Cite this

    RAMSEY, J., ZHANG, J., & SPIRTES, P. (2006). Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006) (pp. 401-408). AUAI Press.
    RAMSEY, Joseph ; ZHANG, Jiji ; SPIRTES, Peter. / Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006). AUAI Press, 2006. pp. 401-408
    @inproceedings{2d2be96f12b444409793eb0178b2e24f,
    title = "Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference",
    abstract = "Most causal inference algorithms in the literature (e.g., Pearl (2000), Spirtes et al. (2000), Heckerman et al. (1999)) exploit an assumption usually referred to as the causal Faithfulness or Stability condition. In this paper, we highlight two components of the condition used in constraint-based algorithms, which we call {"}Adjacency-Faithfulness{"} and {"}Orientation-Faithfulness{"}. We point out that assuming Adjacency-Faithfulness is true, it is in principle possible to test the validity of Orientation-Faithfulness. Based on this observation, we explore the consequence of making only the Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. We show that the familiar PC algorithm has to be modified to be (asymptotically) correct under the weaker, Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. Roughly the modified algorithm, called Conservative PC (CPC), checks whether Orientation-Faithfulness holds in the orientation phase, and if not, avoids drawing certain causal conclusions the PC algorithm would draw. However, if the stronger, standard causal Faithfulness condition actually obtains, the CPC algorithm is shown to output the same pattern as the PC algorithm does in the large sample limit. We also present a simulation study showing that the CPC algorithm runs almost as fast as the PC algorithm, and outputs significantly fewer false causal arrowheads than the PC algorithm does on realistic sample sizes. We end our paper by discussing how score-based algorithms such as GES perform when the Adjacency-Faithfulness but not the standard causal Faithfulness condition holds, and how to extend our work to the FCI algorithm, which allows for the possibility of latent variables.",
    author = "Joseph RAMSEY and Jiji ZHANG and Peter SPIRTES",
    year = "2006",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    language = "English",
    isbn = "974903922",
    pages = "401--408",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006)",
    publisher = "AUAI Press",

    }

    RAMSEY, J, ZHANG, J & SPIRTES, P 2006, Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference. in Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006). AUAI Press, pp. 401-408.

    Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference. / RAMSEY, Joseph; ZHANG, Jiji; SPIRTES, Peter.

    Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006). AUAI Press, 2006. p. 401-408.

    Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsConference paper (refereed)Researchpeer-review

    TY - GEN

    T1 - Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference

    AU - RAMSEY, Joseph

    AU - ZHANG, Jiji

    AU - SPIRTES, Peter

    PY - 2006/1/1

    Y1 - 2006/1/1

    N2 - Most causal inference algorithms in the literature (e.g., Pearl (2000), Spirtes et al. (2000), Heckerman et al. (1999)) exploit an assumption usually referred to as the causal Faithfulness or Stability condition. In this paper, we highlight two components of the condition used in constraint-based algorithms, which we call "Adjacency-Faithfulness" and "Orientation-Faithfulness". We point out that assuming Adjacency-Faithfulness is true, it is in principle possible to test the validity of Orientation-Faithfulness. Based on this observation, we explore the consequence of making only the Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. We show that the familiar PC algorithm has to be modified to be (asymptotically) correct under the weaker, Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. Roughly the modified algorithm, called Conservative PC (CPC), checks whether Orientation-Faithfulness holds in the orientation phase, and if not, avoids drawing certain causal conclusions the PC algorithm would draw. However, if the stronger, standard causal Faithfulness condition actually obtains, the CPC algorithm is shown to output the same pattern as the PC algorithm does in the large sample limit. We also present a simulation study showing that the CPC algorithm runs almost as fast as the PC algorithm, and outputs significantly fewer false causal arrowheads than the PC algorithm does on realistic sample sizes. We end our paper by discussing how score-based algorithms such as GES perform when the Adjacency-Faithfulness but not the standard causal Faithfulness condition holds, and how to extend our work to the FCI algorithm, which allows for the possibility of latent variables.

    AB - Most causal inference algorithms in the literature (e.g., Pearl (2000), Spirtes et al. (2000), Heckerman et al. (1999)) exploit an assumption usually referred to as the causal Faithfulness or Stability condition. In this paper, we highlight two components of the condition used in constraint-based algorithms, which we call "Adjacency-Faithfulness" and "Orientation-Faithfulness". We point out that assuming Adjacency-Faithfulness is true, it is in principle possible to test the validity of Orientation-Faithfulness. Based on this observation, we explore the consequence of making only the Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. We show that the familiar PC algorithm has to be modified to be (asymptotically) correct under the weaker, Adjacency-Faithfulness assumption. Roughly the modified algorithm, called Conservative PC (CPC), checks whether Orientation-Faithfulness holds in the orientation phase, and if not, avoids drawing certain causal conclusions the PC algorithm would draw. However, if the stronger, standard causal Faithfulness condition actually obtains, the CPC algorithm is shown to output the same pattern as the PC algorithm does in the large sample limit. We also present a simulation study showing that the CPC algorithm runs almost as fast as the PC algorithm, and outputs significantly fewer false causal arrowheads than the PC algorithm does on realistic sample sizes. We end our paper by discussing how score-based algorithms such as GES perform when the Adjacency-Faithfulness but not the standard causal Faithfulness condition holds, and how to extend our work to the FCI algorithm, which allows for the possibility of latent variables.

    UR - https://dslpitt.org/uai/papers/06/p401-ramsey.pdf

    UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/4383

    M3 - Conference paper (refereed)

    SN - 974903922

    SP - 401

    EP - 408

    BT - Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006)

    PB - AUAI Press

    ER -

    RAMSEY J, ZHANG J, SPIRTES P. Adjacency-faithfulness and conservative causal inference. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (2006). AUAI Press. 2006. p. 401-408