Results 1 
6 of
6
Assessing interactive causal influence
 Psychological Review
"... The discovery of conjunctive causes—factors that act in concert to produce or prevent an effect—has been explained by purely covariational theories. Such theories assume that concomitant variations in observable events directly license causal inferences, without postulating the existence of unobserv ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The discovery of conjunctive causes—factors that act in concert to produce or prevent an effect—has been explained by purely covariational theories. Such theories assume that concomitant variations in observable events directly license causal inferences, without postulating the existence of unobservable causal relations. This article discusses problems with these theories, proposes a causalpower theory that overcomes the problems, and reports empirical evidence favoring the new theory. Unlike earlier models, the new theory derives (a) the conditions under which covariation implies conjunctive causation and (b) functions relating observable events to unobservable conjunctive causal strength. This psychological theory, which concerns simple cases involving 2 binary candidate causes and a binary effect, raises questions about normative statistics for testing causal hypotheses regarding categorical data resulting from discrete variables. The preparation of this article was supported by National Science
Probabilities of Causation: Bounds and Identification
 Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence
, 2000
"... 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 structuralsemantical definitions of the probabilities of necessary or sufficient causation (or both), we show h ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 structuralsemantical 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 datagenerating 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 excessriskratio could be used for assessing attributional quantities such as the probability of causation. 1
Probabilities of causation: Three counterfactual interpretations and their identification
 SYNTHESE
, 1999
"... According to common judicial standard, judgment in favor of plaintiff should be made if and only if it is "more probable than not" that the defendant's action was the cause for the plaintiff's damage (or death). This paper provides formal semantics, based on structural models of counterfactuals, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
According to common judicial standard, judgment in favor of plaintiff should be made if and only if it is "more probable than not" that the defendant's action was the cause for the plaintiff's damage (or death). This paper provides formal semantics, based on structural models of counterfactuals, for the probability that event x was a necessary or sufficient cause (or both) of another event y. The paper then explicates conditions under which the probability of necessary (or sufficient) causation can be learned from statistical data, and shows how data from both experimental and nonexperimental studies can be combined to yield information that neither study alone can provide. Finally,weshow that necessity and sufficiency are two independent aspects of causation, and that both should be invoked in the construction of causal explanations for specific scenarios.
Probabilities of causation: Bounds and identi cation
 In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Arti cial Intelligence
, 2000
"... This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probability that one event was a cause of another in a given scenario. Using structuralsemantical de nitions of the probabilities of necessary or su cient causation (or both), we show howto optimally bound these quantities from data obtained in ex ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probability that one event was a cause of another in a given scenario. Using structuralsemantical de nitions of the probabilities of necessary or su cient causation (or both), we show howto optimally bound these quantities from data obtained in experimental and observational studies, making minimal assumptions concerning the datagenerating process. In particular, we strengthen the results of Pearl (1999) by weakening the datageneration assumptions and deriving theoretically sharp bounds on the probabilities of causation. These results delineate precisely how empirical data can be used both in settling questions of attribution and in solving attributionrelated problems of decision making. 1
On the Definition of Actual Cause
, 1998
"... This report is based on lecture notes written for CS 262C, Spring 1998, and is organized as follows. Following a review of the SL framework (Section 2) Section 3 provides a comparison to other approaches to causation and suggests an explanation of why the notion of actual cause has encountered diffi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This report is based on lecture notes written for CS 262C, Spring 1998, and is organized as follows. Following a review of the SL framework (Section 2) Section 3 provides a comparison to other approaches to causation and suggests an explanation of why the notion of actual cause has encountered difficulties in those approaches. Section 3 defines "actual cause" and illustrates, through examples, how the "probability that event X = x actually caused event
Probabilities of Causation: Bounds and
, 2000
"... 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 structuralsemantical de nitions of the probabilities of necessary or su cient causation (or both), we show how to b ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
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 structuralsemantical de nitions of the probabilities of necessary or su cient causation (or both), we show how to bound these quantities from data obtained in experimental and observational studies, under general assumptions concerning the datagenerating 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 excessriskratio could be used for assessing attributional quantities such as the probability of causation. 1