We propose a new definition of actual causes, using structural equations to model counterfactuals. We show that the definition yields a plausible and elegant account of causation that handles well examples which have caused problems for other definitions

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.

The subject of this paper is the elucidation of effects of actions from causal assumptions represented as a directed graph, and statistical knowledge given as a probability distribution. In particular, we are interested in predicting distributions on post-action outcomes given a set of measurements. We provide a necessary and sufficient graphical condition for the cases where such distributions can be uniquely computed from the available information, as well as an algorithm which performs this computation whenever the condition holds. Furthermore, we use our results to prove completeness of do-calculus [Pearl, 1995] for the same identification problem, and show applications to sequential decision making. 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...

This paper is concerned with estimating the effects of actions from causal assumptions, represented concisely as a directed graph, and statistical knowledge, given as a probability distribution. We provide a necessary and sufficient graphical condition for the cases when the causal effect of an arbitrary set of variables on another arbitrary set can be determined uniquely from the available information, as well as an algorithm which computes the effect whenever this condition holds. Furthermore, we use our results to prove completeness of do-calculus [Pearl, 1995], and a version of an identification algorithm in [Tian, 2002] for the same identification problem.

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

Counterfactual quantities representing path-specific effects arise in cases where we are interested in computing the effect of one variable on another only along certain causal paths in the graph (in other words by excluding a set of edges from consideration). A recent paper [7] details a method by which such an exclusion can be specified formally by fixing the value of the parent node of each excluded edge. In this paper we derive simple, graphical conditions for experimental identifiability of path-specific effects, namely, conditions under which path-specific effects can be estimated consistently from data obtained from controlled experiments. 1

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

This paper is directed towards combining Pearl’s structural-model approach to causal reasoning with high-level formalisms for reasoning about actions. More precisely, we present a combination of Pearl’s structural-model approach with Poole’s independent choice logic. We show how probabilistic theories in the independent choice logic can be mapped to probabilistic causal models. This mapping provides the independent choice logic with appealing concepts of causality and explanation from the structural-model approach. We illustrate this along Halpern and Pearl’s sophisticated notions of actual cause, explanation, and partial explanation. Furthermore, this mapping also adds first-order modeling capabilities and explicit actions to the structural-model approach.