1 / 21

THE OVERRIDING THEME

THE OVERRIDING THEME. Define Q ( M ) as a counterfactual expression Determine conditions for the reduction If reduction is feasible, Q is inferable. Demonstrated on three types of queries:. Q 1 : P ( y | do ( x )) Causal Effect (= P ( Y x =y ) )

maxim
Télécharger la présentation

THE OVERRIDING THEME

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. THE OVERRIDING THEME • Define Q(M) as a counterfactual expression • Determine conditions for the reduction • If reduction is feasible, Q is inferable. • Demonstrated on three types of queries: Q1: P(y|do(x)) Causal Effect (= P(Yx=y)) Q2: P(Yx = y | x, y) Probability of necessity Q3: Direct Effect

  2. OUTLINE • Modeling: Statistical vs. Causal • Causal Models and Identifiability • Inference to three types of claims: • Effects of potential interventions • Claims about attribution (responsibility) • Claims about direct and indirect effects • Actual Causation and Explanation • Robustness of Causal Claims

  3. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION a In linear systems: y = ax + u cov (x,u) = 0 a is identifiable. a = Ryx Genetic Factors (unobserved) u x y Smoking Cancer

  4. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Genetic Factors (unobserved) u x y Smoking Cancer The claim a = Ryx is sensitive to the assumption cov (x,u) = 0. a is non-identifiable if cov (x,u) ≠ 0.

  5. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Z Price of Cigarettes b x a is identifiable, even if cov (x,u) ≠ 0 Genetic Factors (unobserved) u a y Smoking Cancer Z – Instrumental variable; cov(z,u) = 0

  6. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Z Price of Cigarettes b x Genetic Factors (unobserved) u a y Smoking Cancer Claim “a = Ryx”is likely to be true

  7. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION g Z2 Peer Pressure Invoking several instruments If a0= a1 = a2, claim “a = a0” is more likely correct Z1 Genetic Factors (unobserved) u Price of Cigarettes b a y x Smoking Cancer

  8. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Z3 Anti-smoking Legislation Zn Z1 Genetic Factors (unobserved) u Price of Cigarettes b a g Z2 y x Peer Pressure Smoking Cancer Greater surprise:a1 = a2 = a3….= an = q Claim a = q is highly likely to be correct

  9. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Given a parameter a in a general graph a y x Assume we have several independent estimands of a, and a1 = a2 = …an Find the degree to which a is robust to violations of model assumptions

  10. ROBUSTNESS: ATTEMPTED FORMULATION Bad attempt: Parameter a is robust (over identifies) f1, f2: Two distinct functions if:

  11. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION b s Symptom Genetic Factors (unobserved) u a x y Smoking Cancer Is a robust if a0 = a1?

  12. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION s Symptom Genetic Factors (unobserved) u b a x y Smoking Cancer • Symptoms do not act as instruments • remains non-identifiable if cov (x,u) ≠ 0 Why? Taking a noisy measurement (s) of an observed variable (y) cannot add new information

  13. ROBUSTNESS: MOTIVATION Sn S2 S1 y Symptom Genetic Factors (unobserved) u a x Smoking Cancer • Adding many symptoms does not help. • remains non-identifiable

  14. INDEPENDENT: BASED ON DISTINCT SETS OF ASSUMPTION z x y x y z u u a a

  15. RELEVANCE: FORMULATION Definition 8Let A be an assumption embodied in model M, and p a parameter in M. A is said to be relevant to p if and only if there exists a set of assumptions S in M such that S and A sustain the identification of p but S alone does not sustain such identification. Theorem 2 An assumption A is relevant to p if and only if A is a member of a minimal set of assumptions sufficient for identifying p.

  16. ROBUSTNESS: FORMULATION Definition 5 (Degree of over-identification) A parameter p (of model M) is identified to degree k (read: k-identified) if there are k minimal sets of assumptions each yielding a distinct estimand of p.

  17. ROBUSTNESS: FORMULATION b c x y z Minimal assumption sets for c. c c c x x z x z z y y y G3 G1 G2 b Minimal assumption sets for b. x z y

  18. FROM MINIMAL ASSUMPTION SETS TO MAXIMAL EDGE SUPERGRAPHS FROM PARAMETERS TO CLAIMS x z e.g., Claim: (Total effect) TE(x,z) = q y x x z z y y TE(x,z)= RzxTE(x,z) = Rzx Rzy ·x Definition A claim C is identified to degree k in model M (graph G), if there are k edge supergraphs of G that permit the identification of C, each yielding a distinct estimand.

  19. FROM MINIMAL ASSUMPTION SETS TO MAXIMAL EDGE SUPERGRAPHS FROM PARAMETERS TO CLAIMS x z e.g., Claim: (Total effect) TE(x,z) = q y Nonparametric Definition A claim C is identified to degree k in model M (graph G), if there are k edge supergraphs of G that permit the identification of C, each yielding a distinct estimand. x x z z y y

  20. SUMMARY OF ROBUSTNESS RESULTS • Formal definition to ROBUSTNESS of causal claims: • “A claim is robust when it is insensitive to violations of some of the model assumptions relevant to substantiating that claim.” • Graphical criteria and algorithms for computing the degree of robustness of a given causal claim.

  21. CONCLUSIONS Structural-model semantics enriched with logic + graphs leads to formal interpretation and practical assessments of wide variety of causal and counterfactual relationships.

More Related