Causal Confirmation Measures: From Simpson's Paradox to COVID-19
Chenguang Lu

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new causal confirmation measure Cc, based on Bayesian principles and semantic information, which addresses limitations of existing measures like Pd and D, especially in cases like COVID-19 control.
Contribution
The paper proposes the Cc measure that normalizes causal confirmation, resolving contradictions between existing measures and enhancing causal inference in complex scenarios.
Findings
Cc is more reasonable than D and Pd in examples
Cc has normalization and cause symmetry properties
Examples demonstrate Cc's effectiveness in COVID-19 and kidney stone cases
Abstract
When we compare the influences of two causes on an outcome, if the conclusion from every group is against that from the conflation, we think there is Simpson's Paradox. The Existing Causal Inference Theory (ECIT) can make the overall conclusion consistent with the grouping conclusion by removing the confounder's influence to eliminate the paradox. The ECIT uses relative risk difference Pd = max(0, (R - 1)/R) (R denotes the risk ratio) as the probability of causation. In contrast, Philosopher Fitelson uses confirmation measure D (posterior probability minus prior probability) to measure the strength of causation. Fitelson concludes that from the perspective of Bayesian confirmation, we should directly accept the overall conclusion without considering the paradox. The author proposed a Bayesian confirmation measure b* similar to Pd before. To overcome the contradiction between the ECIT…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
