Decision making under uncertain conditions has been well studied when uncertainty can only be considered at the associative level of information. The classical Theorems of von Neumann-Morgenstern and Savage provide a formal criterion for rationally making choices using associative information. We provide here a previous result from Pearl and show that it can be considered as a causal version of the von Neumann-Morgenstern Theorem; furthermore, we consider the case when the true causal mechanism that controls the environment is unknown to the decision maker and propose a causal version of the Savage Theorem. As applications, we argue how previous optimal action learning methods for causal environments fit within the Causal Savage Theorem we present thus showing the utility of our result in the justification and design of learning algorithms; furthermore, we define a Causal Nash Equilibria for a strategic game in a causal environment in terms of the preferences induced by our Causal Decision Making Theorem.
A previous attempt to formalize Decision Theory in the presence of Causal Information is given in @cite_53 , @cite_70 . According to such formulation, a decision maker must choose whatever action is more likely to (causally) produce desired outcomes while keeping any beliefs about causal relations fixed ( @cite_4 ). This is stated by the Stalnaker ( @cite_59 ) equation where @math is to be read as @math @math ( @cite_41 , @cite_11 ). Lewis' and Joyce's work captured the intuition that causal relations may be used to control the environment and to predict what is caused by the actions of a decision maker. In Section we refine the @math operator by an explicit way of calculating the probability of causing an outcome by doing a certain action in terms of Pearl's do-calculus.
@cite_4 @cite_70 @cite_41 @cite_53 @cite_59 @cite_11
1480413091 2542071751 1850984366 1961009203
We present a definition of cause and effect in terms of decision-theoretic primitives and thereby provide a principled foundation for causal reasoning. Our definition departs from the traditional view of causation in that causal assertions may vary with the set of decisions available. We argue that this approach provides added clarity to the notion of cause. Also in this paper, we examine the encoding of causal relationships in directed acyclic graphs. We describe a special class of influence diagrams, those in canonical form, and show its relationship to Pearl's representation of cause and effect. Finally, we show how canonical form facilitates counterfactual reasoning. Motivated by online recommendation and advertising systems, we consider a causal model for stochastic contextual bandits with a latent low-dimensional confounder. In our model, there are @math observed contexts and @math arms of the bandit. The observed context influences the reward obtained through a latent confounder variable with cardinality @math ( @math ). The arm choice and the latent confounder causally determines the reward while the observed context is correlated with the confounder. Under this model, the @math mean reward matrix @math (for each context in @math and each arm in @math ) factorizes into non-negative factors @math ( @math ) and @math ( @math ). This insight enables us to propose an @math -greedy NMF-Bandit algorithm that designs a sequence of interventions (selecting specific arms), that achieves a balance between learning this low-dimensional structure and selecting the best arm to minimize regret. Our algorithm achieves a regret of @math at time @math , as compared to @math for conventional contextual bandits, assuming a constant gap between the best arm and the rest for each context. These guarantees are obtained under mild sufficiency conditions on the factors that are weaker versions of the well-known Statistical RIP condition. We further propose a class of generative models that satisfy our sufficient conditions, and derive a lower bound of @math . These are the first regret guarantees for online matrix completion with bandit feedback, when the rank is greater than one. We further compare the performance of our algorithm with the state of the art, on synthetic and real world data-sets. The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X,Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: methods based on Additive Noise Models (ANMs) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CAUSEEFFECTPAIRS that consists of data for 100 different causee ffect pairs selected from 37 data sets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the method based on Additive Noise Models that has originally been proposed by (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63 ± 10 and an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method. Mining for association rules in market basket data has proved a fruitful area of research. Measures such as conditional probability (confidence) and correlation have been used to infer rules of the form “the existence of item A implies the existence of item B.” However, such rules indicate only a statistical relationship between A and B. They do not specify the nature of the relationship: whether the presence of A causes the presence of B, or the converse, or some other attribute or phenomenon causes both to appear together. In applications, knowing such causal relationships is extremely useful for enhancing understanding and effecting change. While distinguishing causality from correlation is a truly difficult problem, recent work in statistics and Bayesian learning provide some avenues of attack. In these fields, the goal has generally been to learn complete causal models, which are essentially impossible to learn in large-scale data mining applications with a large number of variables. In this paper, we consider the problem of determining casual relationships, instead of mere associations, when mining market basket data. We identify some problems with the direct application of Bayesian learning ideas to mining large databases, concerning both the scalability of algorithms and the appropriateness of the statistical techniques, and introduce some initial ideas for dealing with these problems. We present experimental results from applying our algorithms on several large, real-world data sets. The results indicate that the approach proposed here is both computationally feasible and successful in identifying interesting causal structures. An interesting outcome is that it is perhaps easier to infer the lack of causality than to infer causality, information that is useful in preventing erroneous decision making.