On the Properties of Conditional Independence

  • Wolfgang Spohn
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 234)


As the paper explains, it is crucial to epistemology in general and to the theory of causation in particular to investigate the properties of conditional independence as completely as possible. The paper summarizes the most important results concerning conditional independence with respect to two important representations of epistemic states, namely (strictly positive) probability measures and natural conditional (or disbelief or ranking) functions. It finally adds some new observations.


Probability Measure Conditional Independence Epistemic State Belief Revision Causal Dependence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carnap, R.: 1950, Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Dawid, A. P.: 1979, ‘Conditional Independence in Statistical Theory’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 41, 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Dawid, A. P.: 1980, ‘Conditional Independence for Statistical Operations’, Annals of Statistics, 8, 598–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geiger, D.: 1990, Graphoids: A Qualitative Framework for Probabilistic Inference, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  5. Geiger, D., Paz, A., and Pearl, J.: 1988, ‘Axioms and Algorithms for Inferences Involving Probabilistic Independence’, Technical Report R-119, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles. Also in: Information and Computation, 91 (1991) 128-141.Google Scholar
  6. Geiger, D. and Pearl, J.: 1988, ‘Logical and Algorithmic Properties of Conditional Independence and Qualitative Independence’, Technical Report R-97-IIL, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles, forthcoming in Annals of Statistics. Google Scholar
  7. Geiger, D. and Pearl, J.: 1990, ‘On the Logic of Causal Models’, in: Shachter et al. (1990), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  8. Geiger, D., Verma, T., and Pearl, J.: 1990, ‘Identifying Independence in Bayesian Networks’, Networks, 20, 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glymour, C., Spirtes, P., and Schemes, R.: 1991, ‘Causal Inference’, in: W. Spohn (Ed.), Erkenntnis Orientated: A Centennial Volume for Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldszmidt, M. and Pearl, J.: 1992, ‘Rank-Based Systems: A Simple Approach to Belief Revision, Belief Update, and Reasoning About Evidence and Actions’, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, Ma.Google Scholar
  11. Hume, D.: 1739, A Treatise Concerning Human Nature.Google Scholar
  12. Hunter, D.: 1991, ‘Graphoids, Semi-Graphoids, and Ordinal Conditional Functions’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5, 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lauritzen, S. L., Dawid, A. P., Larsen, B. N., and Leimer, H.-G.: 1990, ‘Independence Properties of Directed Markov Fields’, Networks, 20, 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matúš, F.: 1988, Independence and Radon Projection on Compact Groups (in Slovak), Ph.D. Thesis, Prague.Google Scholar
  15. Mill, J. S.: 1843, System of Logic.Google Scholar
  16. Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, Ca.Google Scholar
  17. Pearl, J. and Paz, A.: 1985, ‘Graphoids: A Graph-Based Logic for Reasoning About Relevance Relations’, Technical Report R-53-L, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, University of California, Los Angeles: also in: B. Du Boulay, D. Hogg, and L. Steels (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Intelligence II, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1987, pp. 357-363.Google Scholar
  18. Pearl, J. and Verma, T.: 1991, ‘A Theory of Inferred Causation’, in: J. A. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, Ca., pp. 441–452.Google Scholar
  19. Russell, B.: 1912/13, ‘On the Notion of Cause’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26. Also in: B. Russell, Mysticism and Logic, George Allen & Unwin, London 1963, pp. 132-151.Google Scholar
  20. Shachter, R. D., Levitt, T. S., Lemmer, J., and Kanal, L. N. (Eds.): 1990, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Shenoy, P. P.: 1991, ‘On Spohn’s Rule for Revision of Beliefs’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5, 149–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R.: 1993, Causation, Prediction, and Search, Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spohn, W.: 1980, ‘Stochastic Independence, Causal Independence, and Shieldability’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 9, 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spohn, W.: 1983, ‘Deterministic and Probabilistic Reasons and Causes’, in: C. G. Hempel, H. Putnam, and W. K. Essler (Eds.), Methodology, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science. Essays in Honour of Wolfgang Stegmüller on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 371–396.Google Scholar
  25. Spohn, W.: 1988, ‘Ordinal Conditional Functions. A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States’, in: W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms (Eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, Vol. II, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 105–134.Google Scholar
  26. Spohn, W.: 1990a, ‘A General Non-Probabilistic Theory of Inductive Reasoning’, in: Shachter et al. (1990), pp. 149–158.Google Scholar
  27. Spohn, W.: 1990b, ‘Direct and Indirect Causes’, Topoi, 9, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spohn, W.: 1991, ‘A Reason for Explanation: Explanations Provide Stable Reasons’, in: W. Spohn, B. C. van Fraassen, and B. Skyrms (Eds.), Existence and Explanation. Essays Presented in Honor of Karel Lambert, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 165–196.Google Scholar
  29. Spohn, W.: 1993, ‘Causal Laws are Objectifications of Inductive Schemes’, in: J. Dubucs (Ed.), Philosophy of Probability, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 223–255.Google Scholar
  30. Spohn, W.: 1994, ‘On Reichenbach’s Principle of the Common Cause’, in: W. C. Salmon and G. Wolters (Eds.), Logic, Language, and the Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 215–239.Google Scholar
  31. Studený, M.: 1989a, ‘Multiinformation and the Problem of Characterization of Conditional Independence Relations’, Problems of Control and Information Theory, 18, 3–16.Google Scholar
  32. Studený, M.: 1989b, ‘Attempts at Axiomatic Description of Conditional Independence’, Kybernetika 25, Suppl., 72–80.Google Scholar
  33. Studeny, M.: 1992, ‘Conditional Independence Relations Have No Finite Complete Characterization’, in: Transactions of the 1hh Prague Conference on Information Theory, Statistical Decision Functions, Random Processes, Held at Prague 1990, Vol. B, Academia, Prague, pp. 377–396.Google Scholar
  34. Studený, M.: 1993, ‘Structural Semigraphoids’, International Journal of General Systems, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  35. Suppes, P.: 1970, A Probabilistic Theory of Causality, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Verma, T. and Pearl, J.: 1990, ‘Causal Networks: Semantics and Expressiveness’, in: Shachter et al. (1990), pp. 69–76.Google Scholar
  37. Verma, T. and Pearl, J.: 1991, ‘Equivalence and Synthesis of Causal Models’, in: P. P. Bonissone, M. Henrion, L. N. Kanal, and J. F. Lemmer (Eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 6, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar


  1. Fine, Terrence: 1973, Theories of Probability, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Lehmann, E. L.: 1966, ‘Some Concepts of Dependence’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37, 1137–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Suppes, P.: 1970, A Probabilistic Theory of Causality, Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Spohn
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung PhilosophieUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations