structural causal model
In plain wordsA precise description of what causes what in a system — a diagram of arrows plus equations — that predicts what would happen if you intervened, not just what tends to occur together.
A mathematical model of a causal system made of variables, structural equations that determine each variable from its direct causes plus an independent noise term, and a probability distributionprobability distribution, n.: A complete description of how likely each possible outcome is — for a fair die, one-sixth for each face. A language model produces one of these over its whole vocabulary at every step. over the noise. Its causal graph, usually a directed acyclic graph (DAG), draws an arrow from each cause to its effect. An SCM answers three kinds of query: observational, through the joint distribution it induces (as a Bayesian networkBayesian network, n.: A diagram of causes and effects with probabilities attached — say, how rain and a sprinkler can each make grass wet — that lets a computer update its beliefs about hidden causes when it sees evidence. does); interventional, by replacing an equation — written do(X = x) — and propagating the change; and counterfactualcounterfactual, n.: A statement about what would have happened if something had been different — 'had I left earlier, I would have caught the train'. AI uses counterfactuals to explain decisions and to measure causes., by inferring the noise from evidence and then intervening. Graphical criteria such as d-separation read off conditional independences, and the do-calculusdo-calculus, n.: A set of mathematical rules, devised by Judea Pearl, for working out the effect of deliberately changing something using only observational data plus a diagram of what causes what. determines when interventional quantities can be computed from observational data. SCMs are the formal backbone of Pearl-style causal inferencecausal inference, n.: Working out whether one thing actually causes another, rather than merely occurring alongside it — for example, whether a new feature made users stay longer or just happened at the same time., causal discovery algorithms and counterfactual fairnesscounterfactual fairness, n.: A fairness test that asks: had this person been of another race or sex, with everything that would have followed from that, would the system have decided the same way?, and in interpretabilityinterpretability, n.: The effort to understand how an AI system arrives at its outputs — what information it uses and how it combines it — instead of treating it as a sealed black box. the basis of causal abstractioncausal abstraction, n.: A mathematical way to check whether a simple, human-readable recipe really describes what a neural network does inside, by testing whether matching internal parts behave the same way when swapped., which tests whether a network implements a hypothesized high-level causal model.
We wrote down a structural causal model of the pipeline before deciding which variables to adjust for.
Origin
The geneticist Sewall Wright introduced path diagrams in 1921, and econometricians such as Trygve Haavelmo (1943) developed structural equation models. Judea Pearl unified these with Bayesian networks and a theory of intervention in the 1990s; his book Causality (2000) made the structural causal model standard in computer science.
Related
- causal inferencecausal inference, n.: Working out whether one thing actually causes another, rather than merely occurring alongside it — for example, whether a new feature made users stay longer or just happened at the same time.
- do-calculusdo-calculus, n.: A set of mathematical rules, devised by Judea Pearl, for working out the effect of deliberately changing something using only observational data plus a diagram of what causes what.
- counterfactualcounterfactual, n.: A statement about what would have happened if something had been different — 'had I left earlier, I would have caught the train'. AI uses counterfactuals to explain decisions and to measure causes.
- Bayesian networkBayesian network, n.: A diagram of causes and effects with probabilities attached — say, how rain and a sprinkler can each make grass wet — that lets a computer update its beliefs about hidden causes when it sees evidence.
- confounding variableconfounding variable, n.: A hidden third factor that influences two things at once and makes them look linked. Ice-cream sales and drownings both rise in hot weather; neither causes the other.
- causal abstractioncausal abstraction, n.: A mathematical way to check whether a simple, human-readable recipe really describes what a neural network does inside, by testing whether matching internal parts behave the same way when swapped.
Mentioned in
causal inferencecausal inference, n.: Working out whether one thing actually causes another, rather than merely occurring alongside it — for example, whether a new feature made users stay longer or just happened at the same time., confounding variableconfounding variable, n.: A hidden third factor that influences two things at once and makes them look linked. Ice-cream sales and drownings both rise in hot weather; neither causes the other., counterfactualcounterfactual, n.: A statement about what would have happened if something had been different — 'had I left earlier, I would have caught the train'. AI uses counterfactuals to explain decisions and to measure causes., do-calculusdo-calculus, n.: A set of mathematical rules, devised by Judea Pearl, for working out the effect of deliberately changing something using only observational data plus a diagram of what causes what., Simpson's paradoxSimpson's paradox, n.: A statistics trap in which combining groups reverses what each group shows: a treatment can do better than another for men and for women separately, yet worse when everyone is counted together., uplift modelinguplift modeling, n.: Predicting not who will buy, recover or respond, but whose behavior will actually change because of an action such as a discount or a treatment, so that it is offered only where it makes a difference.