-
On Probabilistic and Causal Reasoning with Summation Operators
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas F. Icard,
Milan Mossé
Abstract:
Ibeling et al. (2023). axiomatize increasingly expressive languages of causation and probability, and Mosse et al. (2024) show that reasoning (specifically the satisfiability problem) in each causal language is as difficult, from a computational complexity perspective, as reasoning in its merely probabilistic or "correlational" counterpart. Introducing a summation operator to capture common device…
▽ More
Ibeling et al. (2023). axiomatize increasingly expressive languages of causation and probability, and Mosse et al. (2024) show that reasoning (specifically the satisfiability problem) in each causal language is as difficult, from a computational complexity perspective, as reasoning in its merely probabilistic or "correlational" counterpart. Introducing a summation operator to capture common devices that appear in applications -- such as the $do$-calculus of Pearl (2009) for causal inference, which makes ample use of marginalization -- van der Zander et al. (2023) partially extend these earlier complexity results to causal and probabilistic languages with marginalization. We complete this extension, fully characterizing the complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation, demonstrating that these again remain equally difficult. Surprisingly, allowing free variables for random variable values results in a system that is undecidable, so long as the ranges of these random variables are unrestricted. We finally axiomatize these languages featuring marginalization (or more generally summation), resolving open questions posed by Ibeling et al. (2023).
△ Less
Submitted 18 May, 2024; v1 submitted 5 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Probing the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Probabilistic Reasoning
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard,
Krzysztof Mierzewski,
Milan Mossé
Abstract:
This paper explores the space of (propositional) probabilistic logical languages, ranging from a purely `qualitative' comparative language to a highly `quantitative' language involving arbitrary polynomials over probability terms. While talk of qualitative vs. quantitative may be suggestive, we identify a robust and meaningful boundary in the space by distinguishing systems that encode (at most) a…
▽ More
This paper explores the space of (propositional) probabilistic logical languages, ranging from a purely `qualitative' comparative language to a highly `quantitative' language involving arbitrary polynomials over probability terms. While talk of qualitative vs. quantitative may be suggestive, we identify a robust and meaningful boundary in the space by distinguishing systems that encode (at most) additive reasoning from those that encode additive and multiplicative reasoning. The latter includes not only languages with explicit multiplication but also languages expressing notions of dependence and conditionality. We show that the distinction tracks a divide in computational complexity: additive systems remain complete for $\mathsf{NP}$, while multiplicative systems are robustly complete for $\exists\mathbb{R}$. We also address axiomatic questions, offering several new completeness results as well as a proof of non-finite-axiomatizability for comparative probability. Repercussions of our results for conceptual and empirical questions are addressed, and open problems are discussed.
△ Less
Submitted 11 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
Comparing Causal Frameworks: Potential Outcomes, Structural Models, Graphs, and Abstractions
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
The aim of this paper is to make clear and precise the relationship between the Rubin causal model (RCM) and structural causal model (SCM) frameworks for causal inference. Adopting a neutral logical perspective, and drawing on previous work, we show what is required for an RCM to be representable by an SCM. A key result then shows that every RCM -- including those that violate algebraic principles…
▽ More
The aim of this paper is to make clear and precise the relationship between the Rubin causal model (RCM) and structural causal model (SCM) frameworks for causal inference. Adopting a neutral logical perspective, and drawing on previous work, we show what is required for an RCM to be representable by an SCM. A key result then shows that every RCM -- including those that violate algebraic principles implied by the SCM framework -- emerges as an abstraction of some representable RCM. Finally, we illustrate the power of this conciliatory perspective by pinpointing an important role for SCM principles in classic applications of RCMs; conversely, we offer a characterization of the algebraic constraints implied by a graph, hel** to substantiate further comparisons between the two frameworks.
△ Less
Submitted 6 November, 2023; v1 submitted 25 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretability
Authors:
Atticus Geiger,
Duligur Ibeling,
Amir Zur,
Maheep Chaudhary,
Sonakshi Chauhan,
**g Huang,
Aryaman Arora,
Zhengxuan Wu,
Noah Goodman,
Christopher Potts,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
Causal abstraction provides a theoretical foundation for mechanistic interpretability, the field concerned with providing intelligible algorithms that are faithful simplifications of the known, but opaque low-level details of black box AI models. Our contributions are (1) generalizing the theory of causal abstraction from mechanism replacement (i.e., hard and soft interventions) to arbitrary mecha…
▽ More
Causal abstraction provides a theoretical foundation for mechanistic interpretability, the field concerned with providing intelligible algorithms that are faithful simplifications of the known, but opaque low-level details of black box AI models. Our contributions are (1) generalizing the theory of causal abstraction from mechanism replacement (i.e., hard and soft interventions) to arbitrary mechanism transformation (i.e., functionals from old mechanisms to new mechanisms), (2) providing a flexible, yet precise formalization for the core concepts of modular features, polysemantic neurons, and graded faithfulness, and (3) unifying a variety of mechanistic interpretability methodologies in the common language of causal abstraction, namely activation and path patching, causal mediation analysis, causal scrubbing, causal tracing, circuit analysis, concept erasure, sparse autoencoders, differential binary masking, distributed alignment search, and activation steering.
△ Less
Submitted 7 July, 2024; v1 submitted 11 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Is Causal Reasoning Harder than Probabilistic Reasoning?
Authors:
Milan Mossé,
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
Many tasks in statistical and causal inference can be construed as problems of \emph{entailment} in a suitable formal language. We ask whether those problems are more difficult, from a computational perspective, for \emph{causal} probabilistic languages than for pure probabilistic (or "associational") languages. Despite several senses in which causal reasoning is indeed more complex -- both expres…
▽ More
Many tasks in statistical and causal inference can be construed as problems of \emph{entailment} in a suitable formal language. We ask whether those problems are more difficult, from a computational perspective, for \emph{causal} probabilistic languages than for pure probabilistic (or "associational") languages. Despite several senses in which causal reasoning is indeed more complex -- both expressively and inferentially -- we show that causal entailment (or satisfiability) problems can be systematically and robustly reduced to purely probabilistic problems. Thus there is no jump in computational complexity. Along the way we answer several open problems concerning the complexity of well known probability logics, in particular demonstrating the $\exists\mathbb{R}$-completeness of a polynomial probability calculus, as well as a seemingly much simpler system, the logic of comparative conditional probability.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2023; v1 submitted 27 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
A Topological Perspective on Causal Inference
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
This paper presents a topological learning-theoretic perspective on causal inference by introducing a series of topologies defined on general spaces of structural causal models (SCMs). As an illustration of the framework we prove a topological causal hierarchy theorem, showing that substantive assumption-free causal inference is possible only in a meager set of SCMs. Thanks to a known corresponden…
▽ More
This paper presents a topological learning-theoretic perspective on causal inference by introducing a series of topologies defined on general spaces of structural causal models (SCMs). As an illustration of the framework we prove a topological causal hierarchy theorem, showing that substantive assumption-free causal inference is possible only in a meager set of SCMs. Thanks to a known correspondence between open sets in the weak topology and statistically verifiable hypotheses, our results show that inductive assumptions sufficient to license valid causal inferences are statistically unverifiable in principle. Similar to no-free-lunch theorems for statistical inference, the present results clarify the inevitability of substantial assumptions for causal inference. An additional benefit of our topological approach is that it easily accommodates SCMs with infinitely many variables. We finally suggest that the framework may be helpful for the positive project of exploring and assessing alternative causal-inductive assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2022; v1 submitted 18 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Probabilistic Reasoning across the Causal Hierarchy
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
We propose a formalization of the three-tier causal hierarchy of association, intervention, and counterfactuals as a series of probabilistic logical languages. Our languages are of strictly increasing expressivity, the first capable of expressing quantitative probabilistic reasoning -- including conditional independence and Bayesian inference -- the second encoding do-calculus reasoning for causal…
▽ More
We propose a formalization of the three-tier causal hierarchy of association, intervention, and counterfactuals as a series of probabilistic logical languages. Our languages are of strictly increasing expressivity, the first capable of expressing quantitative probabilistic reasoning -- including conditional independence and Bayesian inference -- the second encoding do-calculus reasoning for causal effects, and the third capturing a fully expressive do-calculus for arbitrary counterfactual queries. We give a corresponding series of finitary axiomatizations complete over both structural causal models and probabilistic programs, and show that satisfiability and validity for each language are decidable in polynomial space.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2021; v1 submitted 9 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
-
On Open-Universe Causal Reasoning
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
We extend two kinds of causal models, structural equation models and simulation models, to infinite variable spaces. This enables a semantics for conditionals founded on a calculus of intervention, and axiomatization of causal reasoning for rich, expressive generative models -- including those in which a causal representation exists only implicitly -- in an open-universe setting. Further, we show…
▽ More
We extend two kinds of causal models, structural equation models and simulation models, to infinite variable spaces. This enables a semantics for conditionals founded on a calculus of intervention, and axiomatization of causal reasoning for rich, expressive generative models -- including those in which a causal representation exists only implicitly -- in an open-universe setting. Further, we show that under suitable restrictions the two kinds of models are equivalent, perhaps surprisingly as their axiomatizations differ substantially in the general case. We give a series of complete axiomatizations in which the open-universe nature of the setting is seen to be essential.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2021; v1 submitted 3 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
Causal Modeling with Probabilistic Simulation Models
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling
Abstract:
Recent authors have proposed analyzing conditional reasoning through a notion of intervention on a simulation program, and have found a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of conditionals in this setting. Here we extend this setting to the case of probabilistic simulation models. We give a natural definition of probability on formulas of the conditional language, allowing for the expres…
▽ More
Recent authors have proposed analyzing conditional reasoning through a notion of intervention on a simulation program, and have found a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic of conditionals in this setting. Here we extend this setting to the case of probabilistic simulation models. We give a natural definition of probability on formulas of the conditional language, allowing for the expression of counterfactuals, and prove foundational results about this definition. We also find an axiomatization for reasoning about linear inequalities involving probabilities in this setting. We prove soundness, completeness, and NP-completeness of the satisfiability problem for this logic.
△ Less
Submitted 29 July, 2018;
originally announced July 2018.
-
CVC4 at the SMT Competition 2018
Authors:
Clark Barrett,
Haniel Barbosa,
Martin Brain,
Duligur Ibeling,
Tim King,
Paul Meng,
Aina Niemetz,
Andres Nötzli,
Mathias Preiner,
Andrew Reynolds,
Cesare Tinelli
Abstract:
This paper is a description of the CVC4 SMT solver as entered into the 2018 SMT Competition. We only list important differences from the 2017 SMT Competition version of CVC4. For further and more detailed information about CVC4, please refer to the original paper, the CVC4 website, or the source code on GitHub.
This paper is a description of the CVC4 SMT solver as entered into the 2018 SMT Competition. We only list important differences from the 2017 SMT Competition version of CVC4. For further and more detailed information about CVC4, please refer to the original paper, the CVC4 website, or the source code on GitHub.
△ Less
Submitted 19 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
-
On the Conditional Logic of Simulation Models
Authors:
Duligur Ibeling,
Thomas Icard
Abstract:
We propose analyzing conditional reasoning by appeal to a notion of intervention on a simulation program, formalizing and subsuming a number of approaches to conditional thinking in the recent AI literature. Our main results include a series of axiomatizations, allowing comparison between this framework and existing frameworks (normality-ordering models, causal structural equation models), and a c…
▽ More
We propose analyzing conditional reasoning by appeal to a notion of intervention on a simulation program, formalizing and subsuming a number of approaches to conditional thinking in the recent AI literature. Our main results include a series of axiomatizations, allowing comparison between this framework and existing frameworks (normality-ordering models, causal structural equation models), and a complexity result establishing NP-completeness of the satisfiability problem. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the basic logical principles common to all existing approaches are invalidated in our causal simulation approach. We suggest that this additional flexibility is important in modeling some intuitive examples.
△ Less
Submitted 8 May, 2018;
originally announced May 2018.
