The direct effect of one event on another can be defined and measured by holding constant all intermediate variables between the two. Indirect effects present conceptual and practical difficulties (in nonlinear models), because they cannot be isolated by holding certain variables constant. This paper presents a new way of defining the effect transmitted through a restricted set of paths, without controlling variables on the remaining paths. This permits the assessment of a more natural type of direct and indirect effects, one that is applicable in both linear and nonlinear models and that has broader policy-related interpretations. The paper establishes conditions under which such assessments can be estimated consistently from experimental and nonexperimental data, and thus extends path-analytic techniques to nonlinear and nonparametric models.

Evaluation of counterfactual queries (e.g., "If A were true, would C have been true?") is important to fault diagnosis, planning, and determination of liability. In this paper we present methods for computing the probabilities of such queries using the formulation proposed in [Balke and Pearl, 1994], where the antecedent of the query is interpreted as an external action that forces the proposition A to be true. When a prior probability is available on the causal mechanisms governing the domain, counterfactual probabilities can be evaluated precisely. However, when causal knowledge is specified as conditional probabilities on the observables, only bounds can computed. This paper develops techniques for evaluating these bounds, and demonstrates their use in two applications: (1) the determination of treatment efficacy from studies in which subjects may choose their own treatment, and (2) the determination of liability in product-safety litigation. 1 INTRODUCTION A counterfactual sente...

We present a definition of cause and effect in terms of decision-theoretic primitives and thereby provide a principled foundation for causal reasoning. Our definition departs from the traditional view of causation in that causal assertions may vary with the set of decisions available. We argue that this approach provides added clarity to the notion of cause. Also in this paper, we examine the encoding of causal relationships in directed acyclic graphs. We describe a special class of influence diagrams, those in canonical form, and show its relationship to Pearl's representation of cause and effect. Finally, we show how canonical form facilitates counterfactual reasoning. 1. Introduction Knowledge of cause and effect is crucial for modeling the affects of actions. For example, if we observe a statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer, we can not conclude from this observation alone that our chances of getting lung cancer will change if we stop smoking. If, however, we als...

We develop a series of approximations for decision-theoretic troubleshooting under uncertainty. Our approach generates troubleshooting plans in the face of uncertainty in the relationships among components and device status, observations, as well as the affect of actions on device status. Included in our approach is a Bayesian-network representation of these relationships. We have applied our technique successfully to troubleshooting problems with printing, photocopier feeders, automobiles, and gas turbines. We report empirical findings demonstrating the high quality of plans produced by our approach. 1

This paper summarizes basic concepts and principles that I have found to be useful in dealing with causal reasoning. The paper is written as a companion to a lecture under the same title, to be presented at IJCAI-99, and is intended to supplement the lecture with technical details and pointers to more elaborate discussions in the literature. The ruling conception will be to treat causation as a computational schema devised to identify the invariant relationships in the environment, so as to facilitate reliable prediction of the effect of actions. This conception, as well as several of its satellite principles and tools, has been guiding paradigm for several research communities in AI, most notably those connected with causal discovery, troubleshooting, planning under uncertainty and modeling the behavior of physical systems. My hopes are to encourage a broader and more effective usage of causal modeling by explicating these common principles in simple and familiar mathematical form. Af...

We analyze the computational complexity of causal relationships in Pearl's structural models, where we focus on causality between variables, event causality, and probabilistic causality. In particular, we analyze the complexity of the sophisticated notions of weak and actual causality by Halpern and Pearl. In the course of this, we also prove an open conjecture by Halpern and Pearl, and establish other semantic results. To our knowledge, no complexity aspects of causal relationships have been considered so far, and our results shed light on this issue. 1

We develop and extend existing decision-theoretic methods for troubleshooting a nonfunctioning device. Traditionally, diagnosis with Bayesian networks has focused on belief updating -- determining the probabilities of various faults given current observations. In this paper, we extend this paradigm to include taking actions. In particular, we consider three classes of actions: (1) we can make observations regarding the behavior of a device and infer likely faults as in traditional diagnosis, (2) we can repair a component and then observe the behavior of the device to infer likely faults, and (3) we can change the configuration of the device, observe its new behavior, and infer the likelihood of faults. Analysis of latter two classes of troubleshooting actions requires incorporating notions of persistence into the belief-network formalism used for probabilistic inference.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probability of causation, that is, the probability that one event was the real cause of another, in a given scenario. Starting from structural-semantical definitions of the probabilities of necessary or sufficient causation (or both), we show how to bound these quantities from data obtained in experimental and observational studies, under general assumptions concerning the data-generating process. In particular, we strengthen the results of Pearl (1999) by presenting sharp bounds based on combined experimental and nonexperimental data under no process assumptions, as well as under the mild assumptions of exogeneity (no confounding) and monotonicity (no prevention). These results delineate more precisely the basic assumptions that must be made before statistical measures such as the excess-risk-ratio could be used for assessing attributional quantities such as the probability of causation. 1