Abstract
Cognitive psychologist Patricia Cheng suggests that erroneous causal inference is perhaps too often incorrectly attributed to problems with the process of inference rather than the data on which the inference is carried out. In this paper, we discuss the role of incomplete data in making faulty inferences and where those problems arise. We focus on one of two potential problems in the data we call ‘unmeasured-in’ and ‘unmeasured-out’ and address a generalization of the causal knowledge in the hope of detecting independencies hidden inside variables, causing the system to behave less than adequately.
The interpretation of the data can be more representative of the problem domain by examining subsets of values for variables in the data. We show how to do this with a generalized form of statistical independence that can resolve relevance problems in the causal model. The most interesting finding is how the examination of contexts can formalize the paradoxical statements in Simpson’s paradox and how a simple detection method can eliminate the problem.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Boutilier, C., Friedman, N., Goldszmidt, M., Koller, D.: Context-specific independence in bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 115–123 (1996)
Butz, C.J., Sanscartier, M.J.: A method for detecting context-specific independence in conditional probability tables. In: Third International Conference on Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, pp. 344–348 (2002)
Cartwright, N.: Causal laws and effective strategies. Nous 13(4), 419–437 (1979)
Cartwright, N.: Nature, Capacities and their Measurements. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)
Cheng, P.W., Novick, L.R.: A probabilistic contrast of causal induction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 545–567 (1990)
Cohen, M.R., Nagel, E.: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. Brace and Co., New York (1934)
Dennis, L.K., Beane Freeman, L.F., Vanbeek, M.J.: Sunscreen use and the risk for melanoma: a quantitative review. Annals of Internal Medicine 139(12), 966–978 (2003)
Esposito, F., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G.: Discovering probabilistic causal relationships: A comparison between two methods. Lecture Notes in Statistics: Selecting Models from Data, vol. 89 (1994)
Good, I.J.: A causal calculus. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (1983)
Sprites, P., Glymour, C., Scheines, R.: Causation, prediction and search. Lecture Notes in Statistics, vol. 81 (1993)
Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)
Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)
Pearl, J., Verma, T.S.: A theory of infered causation. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, pp. 441–452. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)
Reichenbach, H.: The Direction of Time. University of California Press, Berkeley (1956)
Simpson, E.H.: The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 13(B), 238–241 (1951)
Wong, S.K.M., Butz, C.J.: Contextual weak independence in baysian networks. In: Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 670–679 (1999)
Suppes, P.: A Probabilistic Theory of Causation. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1970)
Zhang, N., Poole, D.: On the role of context-specific independence in probabilistic reasoning. In: Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1288–1293 (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sanscartier, M.J., Neufeld, E. (2005). Causality, Simpson’s Paradox, and Context-Specific Independence. In: Godo, L. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3571. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11518655_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-27326-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31888-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)