Results 1 -
3 of
3
Structure and Strength in Causal Induction
"... We present a framework for the rational analysis of elemental causal induction – learning about the existence of a relationship between a single cause and effect – based upon causal graphical models. This framework makes precise the distinction between causal structure and causal strength: the diffe ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 56 (26 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We present a framework for the rational analysis of elemental causal induction – learning about the existence of a relationship between a single cause and effect – based upon causal graphical models. This framework makes precise the distinction between causal structure and causal strength: the difference between asking whether a causal relationship exists and asking how strong that causal relationship might be. We show that two leading rational models of elemental causal induction, ∆P and causal power, both estimate causal strength, and introduce a new rational model, causal support, that assesses causal structure. Causal support predicts several key phenomena of causal induction that cannot be accounted for by other rational models, which we explore through a series of experiments. These phenomena include the complex interaction between ∆P and the base-rate probability of the effect in the absence of the cause, sample size effects, inferences from incomplete contingency tables, and causal learning from rates. Causal support also provides a better account of a number of existing datasets than either ∆P or causal power.
Learning causal schemata
- In Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
, 2007
"... Causal inferences about sparsely observed objects are often supported by causal schemata, or systems of abstract causal knowledge. We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework that learns simple causal schemata given only raw data as input. Given a set of objects and observations of causal events in ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 6 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Causal inferences about sparsely observed objects are often supported by causal schemata, or systems of abstract causal knowledge. We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework that learns simple causal schemata given only raw data as input. Given a set of objects and observations of causal events involving some of these objects, our framework simultaneously discovers the causal type of each object, the causal powers of these types, the characteristic features of these types, and the characteristic interactions between these types. Previous behavioral studies confirm that humans are able to discover causal schemata, and we show that our framework accounts for data collected by Lien and Cheng and Shanks and Darby.
Learning to learn causal models
"... Learning to understand a single causal system can be an achievement, but humans must learn about multiple causal systems over the course of a lifetime. We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework that helps to explain how learning about several causal systems can accelerate learning about systems t ..."
Abstract
- Add to MetaCart
Learning to understand a single causal system can be an achievement, but humans must learn about multiple causal systems over the course of a lifetime. We present a hierarchical Bayesian framework that helps to explain how learning about several causal systems can accelerate learning about systems that are subsequently encountered. Given experience with a set of objects our framework learns a causal model for each object and a causal schema that captures commonalities among these causal models. The schema organizes the objects into categories and specifies the causal powers and characteristic features of these categories and the characteristic causal interactions between categories. A schema of this kind allows causal models for subsequent objects to be rapidly learned, and we explore this accelerated learning in four experiments. Our results confirm that humans learn rapidly about the causal powers of novel objects, and we show that our framework accounts better for our data than alternative models of causal learning.

