arXiv subjects

Judea Pearl

Publications and source records attributed to Judea Pearl.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

General sample size analysis for probabilities of causation: a delta method approach

Probabilities of causation (PoCs), such as the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), are important tools for decision making but are generally not point identifiable. Existing work has derived bounds for these quantities using combinations of experimental and observational data. However, there is very limited research on sample size analysis, namely, how many experimental and observational samples are required to achieve a desired margin of error. In this paper, we propose a general sample size framework based on the delta method. Our approach applies to settings in which the target bounds of PoCs can be expressed as finite minima or maxima of linear combinations of experimental and observational probabilities. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that the proposed sample size calculations lead to stable estimation of these bounds.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Learning Probabilities of Causation with Mask-Augmented Data

Probabilities of causation play a central role in modern decision making. Tian and Pearl first introduced formal definitions and derived tight bounds for three binary probabilities of causation, such as the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS). However, estimating these probabilities requires both experimental and observational distributions specific to each subpopulation, which are often unreliable or impractical to obtain from limited population-level data. To solve this problem, we propose two machine learning models: Exact-MLP and Mask-MLP, which are trained on a small set of reliable subpopulations and are able to predict PNS bounds for all other subpopulations. We validate our models across four Structural Causal Models (SCMs), each evaluated on population-level data with sample sizes between 100k and 200k. Our models achieve average mean absolute errors (MAEs) of roughly 0.03 on main tasks, reducing MAE by about 80% relative to the corresponding baselines. These results demonstrate both the feasibility of machine learning models for learning probabilities of causation and the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2023

Epsilon-Identifiability of Causal Quantities

Identifying the effects of causes and causes of effects is vital in virtually every scientific field. Often, however, the needed probabilities may not be fully identifiable from the data sources available. This paper shows how partial identifiability is still possible for several probabilities of causation. We term this epsilon-identifiability and demonstrate its usefulness in cases where the behavior of certain subpopulations can be restricted to within some narrow bounds. In particular, we show how unidentifiable causal effects and counterfactual probabilities can be narrowly bounded when such allowances are made. Often those allowances are easily measured and reasonably assumed. Finally, epsilon-identifiability is applied to the unit selection problem.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Probabilities of Causation: Role of Observational Data

Probabilities of causation play a crucial role in modern decision-making. Pearl defined three binary probabilities of causation, the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN). These probabilities were then bounded by Tian and Pearl using a combination of experimental and observational data. However, observational data are not always available in practice; in such a case, Tian and Pearl's Theorem provided valid but less effective bounds using pure experimental data. In this paper, we discuss the conditions that observational data are worth considering to improve the quality of the bounds. More specifically, we defined the expected improvement of the bounds by assuming the observational distributions are uniformly distributed on their feasible interval. We further applied the proposed theorems to the unit selection problem defined by Li and Pearl.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Learning Probabilities of Causation from Finite Population Data

This paper deals with the problem of learning the probabilities of causation of subpopulations given finite population data. The tight bounds of three basic probabilities of causation, the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN), were derived by Tian and Pearl. However, obtaining the bounds for each subpopulation requires experimental and observational distributions of each subpopulation, which is usually impractical to estimate given finite population data. We propose a machine learning model that helps to learn the bounds of the probabilities of causation for subpopulations given finite population data. We further show by a simulated study that the machine learning model is able to learn the bounds of PNS for 32768 subpopulations with only knowing roughly 500 of them from the finite population data.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Unit Selection: Learning Benefit Function from Finite Population Data

The unit selection problem is to identify a group of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior, for example, selecting individuals who would respond one way if incentivized and a different way if not. The unit selection problem consists of evaluation and search subproblems. Li and Pearl defined the "benefit function" to evaluate the average payoff of selecting a certain individual with given characteristics. The search subproblem is then to design an algorithm to identify the characteristics that maximize the above benefit function. The hardness of the search subproblem arises due to the large number of characteristics available for each individual and the sparsity of the data available in each cell of characteristics. In this paper, we present a machine learning framework that uses the bounds of the benefit function that are estimable from the finite population data to learn the bounds of the benefit function for each cell of characteristics. Therefore, we could easily obtain the characteristics that maximize the benefit function.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Probabilities of Causation: Adequate Size of Experimental and Observational Samples

The probabilities of causation are commonly used to solve decision-making problems. Tian and Pearl derived sharp bounds for the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN) using experimental and observational data. The assumption is that one is in possession of a large enough sample to permit an accurate estimation of the experimental and observational distributions. In this study, we present a method for determining the sample size needed for such estimation, when a given confidence interval (CI) is specified. We further show by simulation that the proposed sample size delivered stable estimations of the bounds of PNS.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Unit Selection: Case Study and Comparison with A/B Test Heuristic

The unit selection problem defined by Li and Pearl identifies individuals who have desired counterfactual behavior patterns, for example, individuals who would respond positively if encouraged and would not otherwise. Li and Pearl showed by example that their unit selection model is beyond the A/B test heuristics. In this paper, we reveal the essence of the A/B test heuristics, which are exceptional cases of the benefit function defined by Li and Pearl. Furthermore, We provided more simulated use cases of Li-Pearl's unit selection model to help decision-makers apply their model correctly, explaining that A/B test heuristics are generally problematic.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Unit Selection with Nonbinary Treatment and Effect

The unit selection problem aims to identify a set of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior, for example, selecting individuals who would respond one way if encouraged and a different way if not encouraged. Using a combination of experimental and observational data, Li and Pearl derived tight bounds on the "benefit function", which is the payoff/cost associated with selecting an individual with given characteristics. This paper extends the benefit function to the general form such that the treatment and effect are not restricted to binary. We propose an algorithm to test the identifiability of the nonbinary benefit function and an algorithm to compute the bounds of the nonbinary benefit function using experimental and observational data.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Personalized Decision Making -- A Conceptual Introduction

Personalized decision making targets the behavior of a specific individual, while population-based decision making concerns a sub-population resembling that individual. This paper clarifies the distinction between the two and explains why the former leads to more informed decisions. We further show that by combining experimental and observational studies we can obtain valuable information about individual behavior and, consequently, improve decisions over those obtained from experimental studies alone.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Probabilities of Causation with Nonbinary Treatment and Effect

This paper deals with the problem of estimating the probabilities of causation when treatment and effect are not binary. Tian and Pearl derived sharp bounds for the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN) using experimental and observational data. In this paper, we provide theoretical bounds for all types of probabilities of causation to multivalued treatments and effects. We further discuss examples where our bounds guide practical decisions and use simulation studies to evaluate how informative the bounds are for various combinations of data.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Unit Selection with Causal Diagram

The unit selection problem aims to identify a set of individuals who are most likely to exhibit a desired mode of behavior, for example, selecting individuals who would respond one way if encouraged and a different way if not encouraged. Using a combination of experimental and observational data, Li and Pearl derived tight bounds on the "benefit function" - the payoff/cost associated with selecting an individual with given characteristics. This paper shows that these bounds can be narrowed significantly (enough to change decisions) when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. We address the problem of estimating the benefit function using observational and experimental data when specific graphical criteria are assumed to hold.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

Bounds on Causal Effects and Application to High Dimensional Data

This paper addresses the problem of estimating causal effects when adjustment variables in the back-door or front-door criterion are partially observed. For such scenarios, we derive bounds on the causal effects by solving two non-linear optimization problems, and demonstrate that the bounds are sufficient. Using this optimization method, we propose a framework for dimensionality reduction that allows one to trade bias for estimation power, and demonstrate its performance using simulation studies.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

Causes of Effects: Learning individual responses from population data

The problem of individualization is recognized as crucial in almost every field. Identifying causes of effects in specific events is likewise essential for accurate decision making. However, such estimates invoke counterfactual relationships, and are therefore indeterminable from population data. For example, the probability of benefiting from a treatment concerns an individual having a favorable outcome if treated and an unfavorable outcome if untreated. Experiments conditioning on fine-grained features are fundamentally inadequate because we can't test both possibilities for an individual. Tian and Pearl provided bounds on this and other probabilities of causation using a combination of experimental and observational data. Even though those bounds were proven tight, narrower bounds, sometimes significantly so, can be achieved when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. This has the power to solve central problems, such as explainable AI, legal responsibility, and personalized medicine, all of which demand counterfactual logic. We analyze and expand on existing research by applying bounds to the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS) along with graphical criteria and practical applications.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Graphical Models for Processing Missing Data

This paper reviews recent advances in missing data research using graphical models to represent multivariate dependencies. We first examine the limitations of traditional frameworks from three different perspectives: \textit{transparency, estimability and testability}. We then show how procedures based on graphical models can overcome these limitations and provide meaningful performance guarantees even when data are Missing Not At Random (MNAR). In particular, we identify conditions that guarantee consistent estimation in broad categories of missing data problems, and derive procedures for implementing this estimation. Finally we derive testable implications for missing data models in both MAR (Missing At Random) and MNAR categories.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2018

Theoretical Impediments to Machine Learning With Seven Sparks from the Causal Revolution

Current machine learning systems operate, almost exclusively, in a statistical, or model-free mode, which entails severe theoretical limits on their power and performance. Such systems cannot reason about interventions and retrospection and, therefore, cannot serve as the basis for strong AI. To achieve human level intelligence, learning machines need the guidance of a model of reality, similar to the ones used in causal inference tasks. To demonstrate the essential role of such models, I will present a summary of seven tasks which are beyond reach of current machine learning systems and which have been accomplished using the tools of causal modeling.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2016

Incorporating Knowledge into Structural Equation Models using Auxiliary Variables

In this paper, we extend graph-based identification methods by allowing background knowledge in the form of non-zero parameter values. Such information could be obtained, for example, from a previously conducted randomized experiment, from substantive understanding of the domain, or even an identification technique. To incorporate such information systematically, we propose the addition of auxiliary variables to the model, which are constructed so that certain paths will be conveniently cancelled. This cancellation allows the auxiliary variables to help conventional methods of identification (e.g., single-door criterion, instrumental variables, half-trek criterion), as well as model testing (e.g., d-separation, over-identification). Moreover, by iteratively alternating steps of identification and adding auxiliary variables, we can improve the power of existing identification methods via a bootstrapping approach that does not require external knowledge. We operationalize this method for simple instrumental sets (a generalization of instrumental variables) and show that the resulting method is able to identify at least as many models as the most general identification method for linear systems known to date. We further discuss the application of auxiliary variables to the tasks of model testing and z-identification.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2015

External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populations

The generalizability of empirical findings to new environments, settings or populations, often called "external validity," is essential in most scientific explorations. This paper treats a particular problem of generalizability, called "transportability," defined as a license to transfer causal effects learned in experimental studies to a new population, in which only observational studies can be conducted. We introduce a formal representation called "selection diagrams" for expressing knowledge about differences and commonalities between populations of interest and, using this representation, we reduce questions of transportability to symbolic derivations in the do-calculus. This reduction yields graph-based procedures for deciding, prior to observing any data, whether causal effects in the target population can be inferred from experimental findings in the study population. When the answer is affirmative, the procedures identify what experimental and observational findings need be obtained from the two populations, and how they can be combined to ensure bias-free transport.

stat.ME↗