Add Journal to My Library
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
, Volume Advance Article – Apr 18, 2017

28 pages

/lp/ou_press/the-frugal-inference-of-causal-relations-c9GZIb0YTb

- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Copyright
- © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
- ISSN
- 0007-0882
- eISSN
- 1464-3537
- D.O.I.
- 10.1093/bjps/axw033
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract Recent approaches to causal modelling rely upon the causal Markov condition, which specifies which probability distributions are compatible with a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Further principles are required in order to choose among the large number of DAGs compatible with a given probability distribution. Here we present a principle that we call frugality. This principle tells one to choose the DAG with the fewest causal arrows. We argue that frugality has several desirable properties compared to the other principles that have been suggested, including the well-known causal faithfulness condition. 1 Introduction 2 The Causal Markov Condition 3 Faithfulness 4 Frugality 4.1 Basic independences and frugality 4.2 General properties of directed acyclic graphs satisfying frugality 4.3 Connection to minimality assumptions 5 Frugality as a Parsimony Principle 6 Conclusion Appendix 1 Introduction It is almost a cliché to say that causation is not the same as correlation. Nevertheless, there is a widely held principle, known as the principle of the common cause (PCC), that links causation and correlation. It says that there is no correlation without some causation. More specifically, it says that if two events are correlated (in the sense of being probabilistically dependent on each other), then either one event causes the other or both events are effects of some common cause. This principle helps address the problem of how to use an empirically grounded probability distribution over a space of possible events to infer something about causation. But there are two well-known limitations of the PCC. First, it has a rather narrow range of applications. At best, it tells us what to infer given a correlation between two events; it is silent about what to infer when the probability distribution ranges over more events. Second, even when the principle applies, it does not allow us to infer anything very specific about causation. As stated above, it leaves open three possible causal hypotheses, and does not tell us which of them should be preferred. Even worse, the correlation between two events may be produced by a combination of two of these three hypotheses. It is possible that one event causes another and that these two events share a common cause. In this case, there is a direct causal relationship between every pair of events. In the causality literature, this kind of causal hypothesis is often referred to as complete. Recent work on causality is based on what has become known as the causal Markov condition (CMC) (Glymour et al. [1987]; Kiiveri et al. [1984]; Pearl [2000]; Spirtes and Zhang [2014]). This principle entails (one formulation of) the PCC as a special case. But the CMC is far more general than the PCC, and is applicable to causal hypotheses involving any number of events. Nevertheless, the CMC has the same limiting property as the PCC: it always fails to rule out complete causal hypotheses. This means, as Zhang ([2013]) points out, that the CMC must be supplemented by some version of Occam’s razor in order to use probabilistic information to infer specific causal hypotheses. Zhang discusses three such razors: the causal faithfulness condition, and two versions of the causal minimality condition. In this article, we introduce a fourth razor, which we refer to as frugality, and argue that it is superior to each of the other razors in some important respects. Frugality states that among the causal hypotheses that are compatible with a probability distribution according to the CMC, one should choose from among the set of hypotheses that posit the fewest causal arrows. The CMC and the various razors have been used to develop and justify search algorithms for choosing among a set of causal hypotheses based on knowledge of a probability distribution. The following article complements that of Raskutti and Uhler ([unpublished]), who present the virtues of search algorithms that seek the most frugal model. Here, however, we do not aim to defend any particular search algorithm. The choice of a search algorithm depends on factors other than (and in addition to) the plausibility of the algorithms’ underlying assumptions—for example, on computational and statistical tractability. Here our focus is on the assumptions themselves. We argue that frugality is preferable to the other razors insofar as it provides a principled basis for choosing among causal hypotheses compatible with the CMC. Frugality specifies a criterion for ranking models in terms of their simplicity—that is, number of causal arrows—and specifies that one should choose from among the simplest models. As we will see, the other proposed razors do not work like this because they do not yield a ranking over the set of models that are compatible with the CMC. For example, the causal faithfulness condition does not specify a basis for ranking models, but rather presents a criterion that models can either succeed or fail to meet. The minimality conditions allow for orderings over subsets of models, but do not allow for a global ordering over the full set of models. The use of these three razors will often lead one to choose simpler models, but only frugality dictates that one should choose these models because they are simpler. Of the three razors, the causal faithfulness condition has by far received the most attention in the philosophical literature. A causal model is faithful to a probability distribution if all of the probabilistic independencies in the distribution are entailed by the CMC. The causal faithfulness condition states that the true causal model is faithful to the true probability distribution. Recently, Zhang and Spirtes ([2008]) have fruitfully explored ways that one can use principles that are logically weaker than faithfulness to choose among causal hypotheses. In cases where faithfulness fails, but these weaker principles are satisfied, it is sometimes possible to use the probability distribution to verify that faithfulness has failed and to avoid choosing the wrong model. Frugality resembles Spirtes and Zhang’s principles in being logically weaker than faithfulness. Yet frugality not only enables one to avoid getting the wrong model in cases where faithfulness fails, but also enables the identification of the correct model in many such cases. Moreover, in any case where faithfulness is satisfied, the true model satisfies frugality as well. Frugality thus never fails where faithfulness succeeds, but sometimes succeeds where faithfulness fails. The remainder of this article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the CMC. In Section 3, we give an overview of the literature on the causal faithfulness condition. Section 4 introduces frugality and compares it to Zhang’s three versions of Occam’s razor. In Section 5, we present frugality’s virtues as a model selection principle. Section 6 concludes. 2 The Causal Markov Condition In the following, we will follow standard practice in representing causal hypotheses using directed acyclic graphs, defined as follows: Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG): A DAG specifies a fixed set of variables, plus a set of arrows between pairs of these variables, such that there are no cycles when you follow the arrows from tail to tip in an unbroken sequence (a directed chain, or directed path). When the arrows in a DAG are interpreted causally, ‘acyclic’ implies that no variable is directly or indirectly a cause of itself. Note that DAGs do not talk about causal relationships between events. Rather, they posit causal relationships among variables, where a variable can be thought of as a set of mutually exclusive events. When two events are correlated, each event and its negation is viewed as a dichotomous variable. To interpret a DAG causally is to treat its arrows as representing direct causal relationships between variables such that the value of each variable is a function of the values of its direct causes in the DAG. To illustrate, consider a case in which whether a bell rings causally depends on the outcomes of the flips of two fair coins.1 The bell rings if and only if both coins are heads or both are tails. We can represent this case in a DAG using three dichotomous variables: one for each coin flip (values: heads, tails) and one for whether the bell rings (values: yes, no). Knowledge of the values of any two of the variables is sufficient for inferring the value of the third. Accordingly, any two variables are correlated conditional on the value of the third (although no pair of variables is unconditionally correlated). To say that one can know the value of any variable given those of the others is not, of course, to say that each variable causally depends on the other two. As we have presented the case, the ringing of the bell depends on the outcomes of the coin tosses, and there are no other causal dependencies amongst these variables. The correct DAG is therefore that given in Figure 1. In discussing DAGs, we will refer to a variable’s direct causes as its parents, and to any causally downstream variables as its descendants. Accordingly, the coin flip variables are parents of B and B is a descendant of each. By convention, every variable is considered to be a descendant of itself. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Causal diagram (DAG) for bell example. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Causal diagram (DAG) for bell example. The relationship between the causal hypothesis represented by a DAG and the probability distribution over the variables in the model is given by the CMC: Causal Markov Condition (Spirtes et al. [2000]): Given a DAG G over variable set V and probability distribution P over V, G and P satisfy the causal Markov condition if and only if any variable X in V is probabilistically independent of its non-descendants given its parents. In our example, the coin flip variables have no parents, so according to the CMC, they are uncorrelated conditional on the variable set that does not include B. In order for the CMC to be plausible, one must assume that the DAG does not omit any common causes of the variables in the model. If there were an omitted common cause of the variables U and V in Figure 1, we could not justifiably assume that they were uncorrelated. In what follows, we will assume that the models we present include all common causes of variables in the model,2 and that the true DAG over these variables satisfies the CMC. We further assume that we have knowledge of the true probability distribution and, in particular, that we know which variables are conditionally dependent and independent. As mentioned earlier, the CMC entails a version of the PCC—namely, that if variables X and Y are correlated, then either X (directly or indirectly) causes Y, Y (directly or indirectly) causes X, or X and Y are joint effects of some common cause. The CMC is more general than the PCC. Notably, while the PCC applies only to the correlation between two variables, CMC is applicable to variable sets of any size. On either principle, a complete graph in which every pair of variables is connected by a causal arrow is compatible with any probability distribution. The contrapositive of the PCC states that if X and Y are not causally related (in one of the three ways described), then they are uncorrelated. In complete graphs each pair of variables is causally related, so such graphs trivially satisfy PCC for any probability distribution. According to the CMC, a complete graph entails no conditional independencies, since for every pair of variables in a complete graph, one is a direct descendant of the other. It follows that the CMC can never rule out the complete DAG. This underscores an important point. Though the CMC tells us that some arrows must be included in a given graph, it never tells us which arrows should not be included in a given graph. In Section 4.1, we make precise an important conceptual relationship between the number of missing edges in a graph (as compared to the complete graph) and the set of conditional independencies entailed by that graph according to the CMC. Roughly, when one removes an edge from a DAG, the resulting DAG entails more conditional independencies. DAGs that entail more conditional independencies rule out more probability distributions, and are thus more informative. Complete DAGs are minimally informative, since they are compatible with all probability distributions. The fact that the CMC never eliminates the complete graph reveals that it does not require models to be informative. The need for principles other than the CMC can thus be motivated on the grounds that scientists do not aim merely to produce theories that are true and general—logical truths are both—but to produce theories that are informative. In this article, we defend frugality on the grounds that it requires one to choose a maximally informative model. In what follows, we refer to the graphs compatible with the probability distribution according to the CMC as Markovian DAGs. For DAGs with more than a few variables, the set of Markovian DAGs is large (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]), so the CMC by itself does not enable one to say much about which DAG is the true one. Further principles are therefore required to choose among the Markovian DAGs for a given distribution. In the following section, we review the best known such principle—the causal faithfulness condition. 3 Faithfulness Of the principles for choosing among the set of Markovian DAGs, the causal faithfulness condition (Glymour et al. [1987]; Spirtes et al. [2000]; Zhang [2013]) is the most discussed in the philosophical literature. A DAG is faithful to a distribution if it entails all of the conditional independencies (CIs) found in that distribution. More precisely: Faithful: Given a set of variables V, DAG G, and probability distribution P defined on these variables, G is faithful to P if and only if there are no conditional independencies in P that are not entailed by G using the CMC. The causal faithfulness condition (‘faithfulness’ for short) states that the true graph is faithful to the true distribution. Of course, we do not always know which graph is the true one. When we are trying to determine which graph is the true one, assuming faithfulness amounts to rejecting any candidate graph that is not faithful to the distribution. While the CMC requires that a graph not entail any CI that is not in the probability distribution, faithfulness requires that all of the CI relations found in the distribution are entailed by G. Faithfulness significantly shrinks the set of candidate Markovian DAGs. It is well known that the faithfulness assumption is violated in cases where there are two directed paths with equal and opposite effects. To give Hesslow’s ([1976]) canonical example, taking birth control pills influences one’s risk of thrombosis via two paths (Figure 2). The pills decrease one’s chances of becoming pregnant and pregnancy itself is a cause of thrombosis. Additionally, the pills increase one’s risk of thrombosis via a path unrelated to pregnancy. If the positive and negative effects cancel out exactly, then taking birth control pills will be uncorrelated with thrombosis. Since the DAG does not entail that any of the variables will be uncorrelated, this example is a failure of faithfulness. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Hesslow’s original example: Path from pills to pregnancy to thrombosis cancels out exactly the edge from pills to thrombosis. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Hesslow’s original example: Path from pills to pregnancy to thrombosis cancels out exactly the edge from pills to thrombosis. Before proceeding to evaluate faithfulness, it is necessary to say more about causal inference from CIs. In general, CIs do not allow one to discover the unique correct DAG, G*. If two graphs entail all and only the same CI statements according to the CMC, we say they are in the same Markov equivalence class. It is not possible to use CIs to distinguish between DAGs that are in the same Markov equivalence class using any of the parsimony principles discussed in this article. The goal of causal inference from CIs is therefore to discover the Markov equivalence class of the true DAG, denoted by M(G*). Since the CMC alone never rules out a complete DAG, it is insufficient for discovering M(G*) in any case where G* is not complete. In contrast, the CMC and the causal faithfulness condition combined are sufficient for discovering M(G*) if they are both true. Theorem 1 Assuming both the CMC and faithfulness, the Markov equivalence class M(G*) can be identified using the conditional independence statements of probability distribution P (Spirtes et al. [2000]). Recently, one of the primary roles of faithfulness has been in proofs justifying the asymptotic correctness of search algorithms such as PC and fast causal inference (FCI).3 Note that although the CMC and faithfulness are sufficient for proving the correctness of these algorithms, the algorithms do not presuppose faithfulness. That is, these algorithms may output a model that does not satisfy faithfulness. Accordingly, arguments showing that faithfulness is false or unjustified do not directly undermine the reliability of these algorithms, which may in some cases output a true model that violates faithfulness. Here we do not address the question of which algorithms should be used in searching for the correct causal model. Our aim is to evaluate whether faithfulness, and other so-called razors, provide a principled basis for choosing among models satisfying the CMC. The thrombosis example is paradigmatic of the failures of faithfulness that have received the most attention in the philosophical literature. It involves three nodes arranged into a triangle. There are other failures of faithfulness that do not involve triangles. Suppose we modify Hesslow’s thrombosis example to include an additional measured variable on the path between pregnancy and thrombosis. This variable could plausibly be a chemical that increases in the bloodstream when a woman is pregnant (Figure 3). If the two paths cancel, this case would also be a failure of faithfulness, but the case is interestingly different than the variant involving the triangle. In the four-node example, there is no DAG that is faithful to the probability distribution. Such failures are called detectable failures of faithfulness. Detectable Failure of Faithfulness: If a set of variables V and a probability distribution P defined on these variables is such that there is no DAG that is faithful to P, then we say that P exhibits a detectable failure of faithfulness. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Hesslow’s modified example: Path from pills to pregnancy to chemical to thrombosis cancels out exactly with edge from pills to thrombosis. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Hesslow’s modified example: Path from pills to pregnancy to chemical to thrombosis cancels out exactly with edge from pills to thrombosis. Such failures are detectable in the sense that it is in principle possible to determine that no DAG is faithful to the distribution and thus to avoid choosing a false faithful DAG. In contrast, the triangle case is an undetectable failure of faithfulness, since there is a DAG that is faithful to the probability distribution (Figure 4). When there is an undetectable failure of faithfulness, assuming faithfulness will lead one to choose the false faithful DAG and nothing in the probability distribution will indicate that a failure of faithfulness has occurred. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Original Hesslow’s example: Faithful DAG that is not the true DAG. Figure 4. View largeDownload slide Original Hesslow’s example: Faithful DAG that is not the true DAG. All undetectable failures of faithfulness involve triangles. Zhang and Spirtes ([2008]) make this precise using the notion of triangle faithfulness. Their definition makes use of several notions we must define. X1 and X2 are adjacent ( X1−X2) just in case there is an edge going in either direction between X1 to X2. A path from X1 to Xn is an ordered set of variables such that one can get from X1 to Xn via a set of adjacencies and in which no variable appears twice. Given a path X1−X2−X3, X2 is a collider just in case X1→X2←X3 and a non-collider otherwise. Here is the definition of triangle faithfulness. Triangle Faithfulness Condition: Let X1, X2, and X3 be any three variables that are all adjacent in G*. If X2 is a non-collider on the path X1−X2−X3, then in the true distribution, X1 and X3, are dependent conditional on any set of other variables that does not contain X2. If X2 is a collider on the path X1−X2−X3, then in the true distribution, X1 and X3, are dependent conditional on any set of variables that contains X2. (Zhang and Spirtes [2008]) A failure of triangle faithfulness is a case in which X1, X2, and X3 are adjacent and either Condition 1 or 2 fails. Triangle faithfulness is weaker than the causal faithfulness condition. In the three-node Hesslow case, triangle faithfulness fails, since birth control and thrombosis are uncorrelated conditional on pregnancy, which is a non-collider on the path from birth control to pregnancy to thrombosis. The following theorem is provable: Theorem 2 Assuming that there are no failures of triangle faithfulness, either G* satisfies the faithfulness or no DAG satisfies faithfulness (Zhang and Spirtes [2008]). In the four-node example, there is no triangle and therefore no failure of triangle faithfulness. When the probability distribution is the one produced by the cancelling paths in Figure 3, Theorem 2 entails that there is no DAG that is faithful to this probability distribution. Additionally, the bell example we used to introduce the CMC also exhibits a detectable failure of faithfulness (Zhang and Spirtes [2008]). The distinction between detectable and undetectable failures of faithfulness reveals that the faithfulness condition has testable implications. Since the faithfulness condition states that the true DAG is faithful to P, it entails that there is some DAG that is faithful to P. With detectable failures of faithfulness, one can in principle show that there is no DAG that is faithful to the distribution and that faithfulness fails. Zhang and Spirtes ([2008]) and Spirtes and Zhang ([2014]) have presented two algorithms for finding detectable failures of faithfulness. These algorithms are ‘conservative’ in the sense that when they find such failures, they mark some of the edges in the graph as ‘unknown’. Zhang and Spirtes show how by testing for detectable failures of faithfulness, one can sometimes avoid accepting the wrong model. A greater victory would be to find the correct model (or, to be precise, the Markov equivalence class of the correct model). In the following section, we propose an alternative to the faithfulness condition. This condition identifies the correct model even in some cases where no model is faithful to the distribution. 4 Frugality Importantly, for the three-node example that violates faithfulness in an undetectable way (Figure 2), there exists a graph with fewer edges (two) that does satisfy faithfulness (see Figure 4). Zhang and Spirtes ([2008]) note that graphs satisfying faithfulness tend to have a small number of edges compared to other Markovian graphs. We use this idea to develop a different principle for inferring the Markov equivalence class of the true DAG. DAG G is more frugal than DAG G′ if G has fewer edges than G′. Maximally frugal DAGs use only as many edges as are necessary in order to satisfy the causal Markov condition (CMC). Complete DAGs always trivially satisfy CMC in virtue of not implying any CI relations. But responsible DAG-builders soon learn that the cost of adding edges is to reduce the testable implications of the model and they condemn such exorbitance. Following their lead, we present the frugality condition: Frugality Condition: Given probability distribution P on V, the true DAG over V is in the set of maximally frugal DAGs for V. Frugality fails when the true DAG is not in the set of maximally frugal DAGs. Here we present this as a condition on the true DAG, but one could avoid reference to the true DAG by adopting the following methodological substitute (cf. Zhang [2013]): Methodological Frugality: Given probability distribution P on V, reject all causal structures that are not in the set of maximally frugal DAGs for V. We will say that a graph satisfies frugality when it is in the set of maximally frugal graphs and that it uniquely satisfies frugality when its Markov equivalence class is the only one in that set. If one does not assume the CMC, then the graph with no edges always uniquely satisfies frugality. But here we are only considering Markovian graphs. To say that a Markovian graph satisfies frugality is simply another way of saying that it is in the set of sparsest Markov representations (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]). We introduce the new term merely for ease of explication. Frugality is weaker than faithfulness, since the frugal graph need not entail all of the CI relations in P. Here’s an example of where the conditions come apart. Presumably, having a high IQ increases one’s chances of winning a Nobel Prize. Aside from being intelligent, it also helps if one has good networking skills. Finally, imagine that intelligent people are more likely to go to the types of schools that encourage one to develop networking skills and these schools are somewhat effective in instilling such skills. The DAG for this example is given in Figure 5. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Nobel Prize example: IQ and school choice are independent due to path cancellation. Figure 5. View largeDownload slide Nobel Prize example: IQ and school choice are independent due to path cancellation. An interesting feature of this graph is that even if there were no causal path between IQ and networking skills, IQ and networking ability would still be correlated conditional on being a Nobel laureate. In fact, they would be negatively correlated. This accounts for our judgement that if we meet a Nobel laureate and find her to be totally socially inept, this leads us to think that she must be really smart. More generally, conditioning on a common effect (that is, a collider) induces a correlation. This is known in the social sciences as endogenous selection bias (Elwert and Winship [2014 ]). Accordingly, if IQ did not influence school choice, IQ and school choice would be negatively correlated among Nobel laureates. Of course, IQ does influence school choice and this opens up the possibility of a type of cancellation different from the one in the Hesslow examples. The negative correlation between IQ and school choice among Nobel laureates might exactly counterbalance the positive effect of IQ on school choice due to the direct causal arrow between them. Consequently, IQ and school choice would be independent conditional on winning the prize. Assuming this were the case, the corresponding probability distribution would contain all of the CIs that are entailed by the DAG in Figure 5, plus the additional one that results from the cancellation. In the presented case, there is no DAG faithful to the probability distribution, but the correct DAG uniquely satisfies frugality. There is no DAG faithful to the distribution, since no causal structure can account for the conditional independence of IQ and school choice. For example, if you remove the arrows going into and out of the node for school choice, then IQ and school choice would be uncorrelated conditional on being a Nobel winner. But this DAG is inadequate, since it entails the false conclusion that school choice is uncorrelated with any of the other variables. Nevertheless, the true DAG satisfies frugality, since there is no DAG with fewer edges that satisfies the CMC. Using frugality, we can replace a detectable failure of faithfulness with a successful recovery of the true DAG.4 It is computationally more difficult to determine that a DAG satisfies frugality than it is to determine that it satisfies faithfulness. To determine whether a DAG is maximally frugal, one must consider all causal orderings of the variables and ascertain that there is none for which there is a DAG with fewer edges.5 Raskutti and Uhler ([unpublished]) have developed an algorithm for finding the maximally frugal graph, but here our concern is with the relationship between frugality and faithfulness rather than with the properties of algorithms that assume one condition or the other. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning their theorem that for every ordering of nodes, there is a unique graph that satisfies the CMC with fewest edges. To find the DAGs satisfying frugality, one needs to find the most frugal Markovian graph for each ordering and see which ones have the fewest edges. It should be clear that such a search will never output a graph that does not satisfy the CMC. This distinguishes Raskutti and Uhler’s algorithm from the conservative PC algorithm presented in (Zhang and Spirtes [2008]), which, for example, outputs a structure that does not obey the CMC in the four-node Hesslow case.6 The Nobel case is a detectable failure of faithfulness in which the true DAG uniquely satisfies frugality. As we explain below, one can show that whenever the true graph is faithful, it is also maximally frugal. The two cases that remain to be discussed are those in which both frugality and faithfulness fail and those in which frugality succeeds, but the true DAG does not uniquely satisfy frugality. Whenever there is an undetectable failure of faithfulness, both faithfulness and frugality fail. For example, in the three-node Hesslow example, the faithful DAG only has two edges, and this false DAG uniquely satisfies frugality. Below we will also present an example of a detectable failure of faithfulness where frugality fails. The four-node Hesslow example is an example of a detectable failure of faithfulness in which the true graph satisfies frugality, but not uniquely. In addition to the true graph, there is an additional graph with four edges (Figure 6). Figure 6. View largeDownload slide Alternative frugal graph for the four-node Hesslow example. Figure 6. View largeDownload slide Alternative frugal graph for the four-node Hesslow example. In this case, one cannot tell which of the maximally frugal DAGs is correct without further information. Applying the frugality condition to this case yields the result that one of the two maximally frugal DAGs is correct. Similarly, in the bell example, frugality selects the three DAGs in which there are only two edges arranged as a collider. This is a great improvement over the CMC alone, which yields nine possible DAGs. It is also an improvement over the combination of the CMC and faithfulness, which yields zero graphs. Even when frugality does not select a unique DAG, it is still able to significantly reduce the number of DAGs one needs to consider, and is therefore very useful. The three cases we have presented in which faithfulness fails while frugality succeeds are not just failures of faithfulness, but failures of a weaker condition known as ‘adjacency faithfulness’ introduced in (Ramsey et al. [2006]). Adjacency Faithfulness: Distribution P satisfies the adjacency faithfulness assumption with respect to DAG G* (with vertices V) if for all pairs of adjacent variables (Xj, Xk), Xj is dependent on Xk conditioned on any set of variables that excludes Xj and Xk. In the Nobel case, IQ and school choice are independent conditional on being a laureate, even though they are adjacent. In the four-node Hesslow case, birth control pills and thrombosis are adjacent, but independent conditional on the empty set. In the bell example, each coin toss is adjacent to the bell’s ringing, but is independent of it conditional on the empty set. Thus, even though adjacency-faithfulness is much weaker than faithfulness, it is nevertheless strong in the sense that it eliminates models that are not eliminated by frugality. Moreover, the conservative PC algorithm, which was designed in order to avoid certain detectable failures of faithfulness, is only guaranteed to produce a correct result assuming adjacency-faithfulness. Note that in the four-node Hesslow case, the two most frugal graphs account for the same number of CIs. The true DAG accounts for every CI except for the independence of birth control and thrombosis. The other DAG satisfying frugality accounts for every CI except for the independence of birth control and the blood chemical conditional on pregnancy. There is no DAG that is able to account for both of these CIs, which is why the faithfulness condition rules out all models. At least in this case, frugality privileges the models that are able to account for the greatest number of CIs. This suggests a possible connection between a model’s having fewer edges and its entailing more CIs. In the following section, we make this connection precise. 4.1 Basic independences and frugality We have repeatedly emphasized the fact that complete graphs are compatible with any distribution according to the CMC. When one removes edges from a complete DAG, one increases the number of testable implications. Each missing edge may be associated with what we will refer to as a basic independency. Given a set of basic independencies corresponding to the missing edges in a graph, one can derive all of the CIs that follow from that graph according to the CMC. In this section, we introduce the concept of a basic independency and explain the connection between such independencies and frugality. For a given set of variables, the number of missing edges will correspond to how frugal a DAG is. It follows that DAGs satisfying frugality entail more basic independencies than those that do not, and are thus more informative. To introduce the concept of a basic independency, we will once again look at the bell example. In the example, in which neither coin toss causally influences the other, U→V is missing and it is this missing arrow that entails the independence of U and V. This is a general property of the CMC’s application to DAGs: the independencies entailed can be obtained by beginning with a complete causal graph compatible with the causal ordering, then subtracting one arrow at a time, until we are left only with the arrows in the original DAG. At each step, the CMC entails a single independency, which we shall call a basic independency. In the bell example, when we subtract arrow U→V, probability P(v|u) simplifies to P(v) because the removal of the arrow indicates that the causal mechanism that produces the value of V does not involve variable U. Here is a stepwise procedure for generating a set of basic independencies associated with any graph: Step 1: Add arrows to complete the DAG. Note that the complete graph entails no independencies, basic or otherwise. Step 2: Delete one of the added arrows. It doesn’t matter which one—the order in which the deletions are made will affect what the basic independencies are, but it will not affect the number, or the total deductive closure of the set of basic independencies obtained. Step 3: The graph obtained after the deletion of the single arrow will entail a probabilistic independency. Here is how it is calculated: Suppose the deleted arrow is X→Y. Then the CMC implies that Y is independent of X conditional on the (remaining) parents of Y. Step 4: Delete another added arrow, and derive another independency (as in Step 3). The independency obtained in Step 3 is still entailed, so now we have two independencies. Step 5: Keep repeating this until we have deleted all of the added arrows, that is, until we are back to the original DAG. The independencies obtained by the subtraction of a single arrow are the basic independencies discussed in the proposition above. Collectively, they are basic because all other independencies follow deductively from these using standard graphoid properties (Dawid [1979]). There is a one-to-one correspondence between the basic independencies and the missing arrows in the graph as illustrated in the proposition below: Proposition 1 There is a one-to-one correspondence between basic independencies and the arrows that are missing in any DAG. (Note that given a fixed number of variables, the number of arrows in any complete DAG is fixed, so the number of missing arrows is also fixed.) The exact list of basic independencies depends on both the complete graph with which one begins and the order in which the arrows are subtracted, but their number is always the same. And most importantly, the set of basic independencies (relative to an ordering) will collectively entail all the independencies that are entailed by the DAG according to the CMC. To illustrate this proposition, we need to introduce a more complicated example. Consider a set of four variables indexed by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. As a kind of short-hand notation, we might write the joint distribution for these variables as P(1,2,3,4). It is a consequence of probability theory alone that their joint distribution decomposes in the following way: P(1,2,3,4)=P(1)P(2|1)P(3|1,2)P(4|1,2,3). So far, no causal assumptions have been made. Now consider the DAG in Figure 7, and note that the ordering we have chosen—namely, (1,2,3,4)—is compatible with the causal ordering in the graph. We could just as well have decomposed the probability according to the ordering (1,2,4,3), since this is also compatible with the causal ordering, but we would end up at the same place. Figure 7. View largeDownload slide A four-node directed acyclic graph. Figure 7. View largeDownload slide A four-node directed acyclic graph. When applied to the causal graph in Figure 7, the CMC tells us that the probability of each variable in the decomposition can be simplified so that it is conditional on only its parents. Any other variables conditioned on in the original decomposition are non-descendants, so they can be omitted. So, for example, P(4|1,2,3) simplifies to P(4|2) because 2 is the only parent of 4; 1 and 3 are non-descendants. Thus, the probabilistic independency implied by the CMC in this example is P(4|1,2,3)=P(4|2). None of the other factors in the decomposition simplify. So, the final simplified decomposition is P(1,2,3,4)=P(1)P(2|1)P(3|1,2)P(4|2). The CMC entails the independence P(4|1,2,3)=P(4|2) and all other independencies entailed by the CMC are derivable from this independency. In particular, it entails the two independencies (a) P(4|1,2,3)=P(4|2,3) and (b) P(4|2,3)=P(4|2). Moreover, it is easy to see that the entailment goes the other way. From (a) and (b), we get P(4|1,2,3)=P(4|2). So the set of independencies {(a), (b)} also has the property that from it, all independencies entailed by the CMC can be derived. However, {(a), (b)} has another important property. Each independency in {(a), (b)} is obtained by the removal of a single arrow. To see this, first add the arrow 3→4 to the DAG in Figure 7. Then we are no longer able to derive (b), but we can still derive (a). So adding a single arrow removes a single independency. Now add 1→4 to complete the DAG in Figure 7. This will prevent us from deriving (a), conforming to the fact that no independencies are entailed by a complete DAG. Again, adding a single arrow removes a single independency. In the reverse direction, begin with the completed graph. Subtract 1→4 and obtain (a). Then subtract 3→4 to obtain (b). So, removing a single arrow adds a single basic independency. As an important consequence of this one-to-one correspondence between missing arrows and basic independences, we have the following proposition: Proposition 2 Consider any two DAGs, G1 and G2, defined on a fixed set of variables V. G1 has fewer arrows than G2 if and only if G1 entails fewer basic independencies than G2. When comparing DAGs defined over the same set of variables, the number of missing edges will correspond to how frugal a DAG is. Proposition 2 follows immediately: Given any two DAGs defined on the same set of variables, the more frugal DAG entails a greater number of basic independencies. It follows that for a given set of variables, DAGs satisfying frugality entail more basic independencies than those that do not. We ended the previous section by noting the connection between a model’s being more frugal and its entailing more CIs. A natural conjecture is that models satisfying frugality entail more CIs (both basic and otherwise) than those that do not. We do not know whether this is the case (and we would be surprised if it were). What matters, however, is not how many independencies are entailed by a model, but rather how many independent independencies it entails. Once one has a set of basic independencies entailed by a model, one already knows everything one needs to know about which probability distributions are compatible with it. This is because all other CIs follow from the set of basic independencies. Models with more basic independencies have more testable consequences. A given model will entail many propositions, but its testable consequences are those that limit the probability distributions that are compatible with the model. Once one has a complete set of basic independencies, any other entailed CIs do not count as further testable consequences. Since models satisfying frugality entail more basic independencies than those that do not, they are more informative (in the sense of ruling out more probability distributions) than models not satisfying frugality. We will discuss the significance of this point in the Section 5. Before doing so, we will first clarify the properties of DAGs satisfying frugality and the relationship between frugality and other model selection principles for finding the correct DAG. 4.2 General properties of directed acyclic graphs satisfying frugality We now present the main result, which asserts the properties of DAGs satisfying frugality in relation to faithful DAGs. Parts of the proof rely on the assumption that violations of faithfulness can only occur due to path cancellations in the graph, and not for other reasons. We call this assumption single-path faithfulness. A precise definition of single-path faithfulness is given in the appendix, along with the proof of Theroem 3. The bell example reveals that frugality is useful even in some cases where faithfulness fails for reasons other than cancellation, but we do not yet know the general properties of these cases. Theorem 3 Any DAG satisfying faithfulness must also lie in the set of most frugal DAGs. Whenever the set of DAGs satisfying faithfulness is non-empty, it is equivalent to the set of DAGs satisfying frugality. There are examples in which no DAGs satisfy faithfulness, whereas the set of DAGs satisfying frugality consists of the true Markov equivalence class. The combination of (b) and (c) proves that the set of Markovian DAGs, G*, where the true Markov equivalence, M(G*), satisfies the frugality assumption is strictly larger than those satisfying the faithfulness assumption. 4.3 Connection to minimality assumptions We have so far considered the relationship between frugality and faithfulness, but there are other versions of Occam’s razor in the literature. Specifically, there is the so-called minimality principle. As Zhang ([2013]) notes, there are in fact two versions of the minimality principle, one given by Spirtes, Glymour, and Scheines (SGS) and another by Pearl. We will refer to these as SGS-minimality and P-minimality, respectively. In this section, we compare frugality to the minimality conditions and prove that it is logically stronger than both. The SGS-minimality condition asserts that there exists no proper sub-DAG of G* that satisfies the Markov assumption with respect to the empirically given probability distribution, where a DAG qualifies as a proper sub-DAG of G* if and only if (i) some directed edge in G* has been removed, and (ii) nothing else is changed (in particular, all remaining edges are left in the same orientation). To see that SGS-minimality is weaker than frugality, consider again the true graph in the three-node Hesslow example and the DAG faithful to the distribution (Figure 4 above). As we have seen, the faithful DAG contains fewer edges, so the true graph will not satisfy frugality, but it will be SGS-minimal. The reason for this is that in the faithful graph, the edge goes from thrombosis to pregnancy instead of from pregnancy to thrombosis, so the faithful DAG is not a sub-DAG of the true DAG. A DAG can be SGS-minimal even if there is a graph with fewer edges, provided that either the adjacencies in the smaller graph are different, or that some of them go in the reverse direction. It follows that every graph that is not SGS-minimal will not satisfy frugality, but not that every graph that is SGS-minimal will satisfy frugality. Frugality is stronger, since it rules out a strict superset of DAGs. It bears mention that there will be more SGS-minimal graphs than might appear at first glance. Raskutti and Uhler ([unpublished]) show that for every causal ordering for a set of variables, there exists a DAG that satisfies the SGS-minimality assumption. Pearl’s notion of minimality, which we refer to as P-minimality, compares models in terms of CIs rather than edges. A DAG fails to be P-minimal just in case the CIs entailed by the DAG are a proper subset of the CIs entailed by some other Markovian DAG. Stated precisely, let G and G′ be two Markovian DAGs, I(G) denote the CI statements entailed by G, and I(G′) the CI statements entailed by G′. Then G′ is preferred to G if I(G)⊂I(G′) and G′ is strictly preferred to G if I(G)⊆I(G′) but I(G′)⊄I(G). In other words, DAG G′ entails a strict super-set of CI statements compared to DAG G. The P-minimality assumption asserts that no DAG is strictly preferred to the true DAG, G*. Zhang ([2013]) shows that under P-minimality, any violation of faithfulness is detectable since under P-minimality, either G* satisfies faithfulness or no DAG satisfies faithfulness. However, as we show in this section, the P-minimality assumption is not as powerful in determining the true Markov equivalence of G* as is frugality. In particular, we show that any DAG satisfying frugality must satisfy P-minimality, whereas there are DAGs that satisfy P-minimality, but not frugality. Hence the set of Markovian DAGs satisfying the P-minimality assumption is a superset of those satisfying frugality. In the three-node Hesslow example, the true DAG is not P-minimal and the faithful DAG is. The true DAG entails no CIs. The faithful DAG (Figure 4) entails that birth control and thrombosis will be independent conditional on the empty set and since this CI obtains, the model satisfies CMC. This is an example of an undetectable failure of faithfulness in which P-minimality selects the false faithful DAG. Zhang ([2013]) proves that for all undetectable failures of faithfulness, the faithful DAG will be P-minimal. Accordingly, under P-minimality, any violation of faithfulness is detectable. However, despite the fact that P-minimality and faithfulness favour the same models when failures are undetectable, it is clear that faithfulness is strictly stronger. Given a detectable failure, faithfulness rules out all models, but there is always a set of P-minimal models. Faithfulness is stronger than either minimality condition. Zhang ([2013]) further proves that P-minimality is stronger than SGS-minimality. In Theorem 4, we show that the frugal graph will always be P-minimal. The following example reveals that the converse does not obtain. Recall the four-node DAG involving IQ, school choice, networking skills, and whether someone is a Nobel laureate where IQ and school choice are independent conditional on meeting a Nobel laureate as a result of the path cancellation described earlier (Figure 5). Suppose this is the true DAG. Now consider the DAG with the same nodes containing five edges displayed in Figure 8. This DAG entails only the CI statement that IQ is independent of school choice conditioned on Nobel laureate. Clearly, this DAG does not satisfy frugality; however, it satisfies the P-minimality assumption since it is Markovian and entails a CI statement that is not entailed by the true DAG or any other Markovian DAG. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Nobel Prize example: Markovian DAG satisfying P-minimality that is not frugal. Figure 8. View largeDownload slide Nobel Prize example: Markovian DAG satisfying P-minimality that is not frugal. The results we have just presented informally were stated more precisely in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]). Let GPM(P) denote the set of Markovian DAGs that satisfy the P-minimality assumption and let GSGSM(P) denote the set of DAGs that satisfies the SGS-minimality assumption. The following theorem shows that the set of maximally frugal DAGs, GFr(P), is a strict subset of the set of DAGs satisfying the P-minimality assumption, GPM(P). Theorem 4 Based on the definitions of GFr(P) and GPM(P): GFr(P)⊂GPM(P). There exist examples where G∈GPM(P) while G∉GFr(P) (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished], Theorem 2.8). Combining this result with Theorem 3 and previous results due to Zhang ([2013]), we have the following nesting property: Corollary 1 GF(P)⊂GFr(P)⊂GPM(P)⊂GSGSM(P). If GF(P)≠Ø then GFr(P)=GF(P). This nesting property proves that the set of DAGs satisfying frugality is a superset of the set of faithful DAGs, but a subset of the set of DAGs, satisfying the P-minimality assumption. Before moving on to the discussion, it is worth commenting further on the DAG in Figure 8. Suppose that this is the true DAG. If so, then we would have a detectable failure of faithfulness in which frugality fails. Moreover, both the DAG in Figure 8 and the frugal DAG would be P-minimal. This shows that using frugality instead of P-minimality opens one up to the risk of eliminating the true DAG from consideration. Despite this possibility, we feel that cases such as the one in Figure 8 render P-minimality less appealing. P-minimality seems plausible because it appears to privilege DAGs that entail more CI relations found in the distribution. Yet this case reveals that P-minimality will prefer a DAG that entails only a single CI to DAGs that entail many more, provided that no other DAG entails that CI. Contrary to initial appearances, then, P-minimality does not mandate that we should try to increase the total number of entailed CIs. It is unclear to us what principled defence one could provide for P-minimality.7 In cases where there is a P-minimal model and there are models that entail a subset of its CIs, the principle entails that we should prefer the P-minimal model, which entails more CIs. However, if there are DAGs that entail CIs that are not in that subset, the principle does not dictate that the P-minimal model just discussed should be preferred to them, even if it entails many more CIs. We understand why one would claim that models that entail more CIs should be preferred. But once one grants that the number of CIs is important, why should it further matter whether the CIs entailed by one model are a superset of those entailed by the other? 5 Frugality as a Parsimony Principle The set of cases in which the true graph satisfies frugality is a superset of the set of cases in which the true graph satisfies faithfulness. Whenever the true DAG is faithful to the distribution, it is also maximally frugal. Moreover, in at least some cases where no DAG is faithful to the distribution, the true graph is in the set of maximally frugal DAGs. As noted, there will be cases in which both faithfulness and frugality are false. In undetectable failures of faithfulness, the two principles deliver the same set of models. If the failure of faithfulness is detectable and frugality fails, then assuming faithfulness will yield no models and assuming frugality will yield false models. Frugality’s ability to recover the true DAG in a greater number of cases is thus coupled with an increased risk of getting the wrong DAG.8 In contrast, by adopting faithfulness, one risks missing the true model in cases where it is recoverable (using frugality). Whether one chooses one principle or the other in part depends on whether one places more value on avoiding false positives or false negatives. Spirtes and Zhang’s conservative approach implicitly places a higher weight on avoiding false positives. Frugality allows for an alternative approach. Both frugality and faithfulness play the role of restricting the set of viable models to some subset of the models compatible with the CMC, but this similarity obscures an important difference between the principles. Frugality comes in degrees. For any two models, one can say whether one is more, less, or equally frugal. It follows that there will always be a set of most frugal models. In contrast, a model either is or is not faithful to the probability distribution, which makes it possible for there to be no faithful DAG.9 Faithfulness is sometimes referred to as a simplicity principle on the grounds that faithful models have fewer edges than unfaithful ones. We agree that faithful models tend to have fewer edges than unfaithful models and, indeed, we agree that faithful models tend to be simpler. But we deny that faithful models are simpler in virtue of being faithful. Faithfulness is a simplifying assumption, rather than an assumption about simplicity. To the degree that models with fewer edges are simpler, their simplicity derives from their having fewer edges. Equivalently, their simplicity derives from their being more frugal. So to the extent that philosophers have defended faithfulness based on considerations of simplicity, their defences implicitly rely on the idea that a DAG’s simplicity corresponds to its degree of frugality. Philosophers care about simplicity principles, in part, because they allow us to judge one model as simpler than another. Faithfulness is not like this. Models either are or are not faithful; there is no such relation as ‘more faithful than’. ‘More frugal than’ is a relation. Models with fewer edges are more frugal. While it does not make sense to describe one model as being more faithful than another, there are contexts in which one may be inclined to describe one model as more minimal than another (either in the sense specified by Pearl or SGS). Consider SGS-minimality, according to which a DAG is minimal just in case it contains no subgraph that is compatible with CMC. While SGS-minimality (like faithfulness) is an all-or-nothing principle, there is a natural way to rank graphs in terms of closeness to the minimal graph. One might, for example, rank a graph that contains the minimal graph as less minimal than the minimal graph, and a graph that contains that graph as even less minimal. Moreover, since SGS-minimality and P-minimality are strictly weaker than frugality (just as frugality is strictly weaker than faithfulness), it may be tempting to think that SGS-minimality and P-minimality can supply what faithfulness cannot, that is, that it may be possible to develop a metric of simplicity in terms of minimality that allows for gradations of simplicity. Even if one developed a way of ranking graphs by degree of minimality, the ranking metric would differ importantly from that supplied by considerations of frugality because of its reference to subset relations. SGS-minimality is defined in terms of subsets of directed edges. P-minimality is defined in terms of subsets of conditional independence relations. Criteria defined in terms of subsets of directed edges or CI relations will neither guarantee the minimization of edges nor the maximization of CI relations. For instance, recall that when there is a triangle failure of faithfulness, both the triangle and the collider will count as SGS-minimal even though the collider has fewer edges (because the collider’s edges are not oriented in the same direction as the corresponding edges in the triangle). Likewise, in the Nobel Prize case, both the four-sided graph in Figure 5 and the five-sided graph in Figure 8 are P-minimal, despite the fact that the former entails two CI relations and the latter entails just one (because the CI relations entailed by the five-sided DAG are not a proper subset of the CI relations entailed by the DAG in Figure 5). Insofar as one seeks a criterion that either minimizes edges or maximizes CI statements, the minimality criteria test whether one of these is maximized for only a subset of Markovian DAGs. Frugality is not like this. Frugality entails that one should choose the DAG that minimizes edges across all Markovian DAGs. Though we do not know if frugality optimizes the number of total CI relations, we do know that it maximizes the number of basic independencies, and that all other independencies can be derived from the set of basic independencies. The informativeness of a DAG corresponds to the constraints it places on possible probability distributions. Since more frugal DAGs entail more basic independencies, they imply more constraints than their less frugal counterparts. Frugality may therefore be justified by the principle that, all else being equal, one should prefer models with more testable consequences. As Popper ([1959]) famously argued, more informative models are preferable because they make more falsifiable claims. Though we do not take a stand on whether Popper is correct, the preference for more informative models is commonplace in philosophy of science. If we prefer more informative models, we should prefer more frugal DAGs. While frugality ranks models in terms of their informativeness, faithfulness cannot be used to provide any similar ranking. Faithfulness does not say that one should choose the model that best matches some feature of the probability distribution. Rather, it says that we should only choose models that are consistent with faithfulness. Instead of presenting a metric that orders Markovian models, faithfulness stipulates a condition in addition to CMC that models must satisfy. An analogy clarifies this distinction between faithfulness and frugality: Suppose a shadow is produced by an unobserved three-dimensional object, and one wants to infer properties of the object based on the shape of the shadow. Doing so requires a compatibility criterion for saying which three-dimensional objects might have produced the two-dimensional shadow. But suppose this criterion still allows for too many possible objects. Faithfulness is akin to further restricting the kinds of objects that we deem to be compatible with the shadow. Frugality is akin to an evidential basis for ranking the possible objects in terms of how well they account for features of the shadow, without declaring any further objects to be incompatible with the shadow. According to frugality, there is not some additional dichotomous property (beyond satisfaction of the CMC) that renders a DAG kosher. Rather, by frugality’s lights, every DAG that satisfies CMC is compared and ranked. Much of the debate over faithfulness has revolved around whether every true causal model is faithful. It is puzzling why, in the context of model selection, philosophers have been so preoccupied with whether true models are always faithful. Model selection criteria identify some metric that one can use as grounds for selecting among candidate models. Such metrics are required when we do not already know which models are true (or, to be more general, adequate), so we need to identify some feature other than truth for choosing among the models. As we note above, frugality offers such a feature: informativeness. It is not clear what comparable feature faithfulness provides. Perhaps there is some feature of faithful models in virtue of which they tend to be preferable. But if so, there should exist some principle invoking that feature, rather than faithfulness itself. Philosophers often treat faithfulness not as a model selection criterion, but as a convention for reading conditional dependencies off DAGs. The convention we have in mind is that given knowledge of the true DAG, if the CMC does not entail that two nodes are uncorrelated, one should (perhaps defeasibly) assume that they are correlated. Our comments here do not relate to the question of whether such a convention is a good one to adopt in a particular context. What one should infer from the true graph is a different question to that of which inductive principles one should adopt in the process of finding the true graph. Here we have emphasized the latter question. Throughout this article, we have assumed that one knows the probability distribution for each case. In making this assumption, we bypass important statistical questions regarding the inference of the probability distribution from one’s data. Finite data sets are ‘noisy’ and it is possible to mistakenly infer that uncorrelated variables are correlated or vice versa. A simulation study conducted in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]) suggests that frugality is especially beneficial in the presence of finite noisy data since the faithfulness assumption is very sensitive to errors made in inferring CI statements. It would be useful to capture the effects of noise on both model selection principles and to understand whether one is more or less robust in the face of the effects of noise. Nothing we have said here shows that faithfulness is not a useful assumption. In practice, it is simple to build algorithms that assume faithfulness and computationally expensive to find the most frugal DAG. Since whenever there is a faithful DAG, it is also the most frugal DAG, it may sometimes turn out that the extra expense of finding the most frugal DAGs in cases where there is no faithful DAG may not be pragmatically justified. Our criticism of faithfulness is not that it isn’t useful, but rather that it does not provide grounds upon which to rank models as being more or less preferable. 6 Conclusion In this article, we have presented a novel principle for choosing among DAGs compatible with a probability distribution according to the CMC. The frugality condition has important advantages over the causal faithfulness, SGS-minimality, and P-minimality conditions insofar as it provides a principled basis for choosing among DAGs compatible with the CMC. One advantage is that it allows for a ranking over the complete set of Markovian graphs. Another advantage is that the ranking of graphs is principled; it is based on their informativeness. Faithfulness does not share these advantages. The fact that faithfulness does not always provide a ranking (principled or otherwise) is evident from the fact that in some cases there is no faithful model. Moreover, the minimality principles do no better. Because they only compare subsets of Markovian models, the minimality principles fail to provide grounds for preferring either the models with the fewest edges or the models that entail the most conditional independencies. In contrast, frugality provides grounds for preferring the models that have the fewest arrows and that thereby entail the maximal number of basic independencies. So, if a razor is construed as a principle that provides grounds on which to prefer simpler (or more informative) models, then of the four razors on offer, frugality is most deserving of its title. Appendix Several of our theorems in Section 4.1 were proven under the assumption of single-path faithfulness. When single-path faithfulness obtains, all failures of faithfulness are due to cancelling paths. To make this idea precise, we need to introduce the concept of d-separation. d-Separation: A path is d-separated by variable set Z just in case: The path contains a triple i→m→j or i←m→j such that m is in Z, or The path contains a collider i→m←j such that m is not in Z and no descendant of m is in Z. (Pearl [1988]) d-separation is property of paths. Two variables are d-separated by Z if and only if they are d-separated by Z along all paths. The CMC entails that if DAG D is the true graph, all nodes that are d-separated in D are uncorrelated in the probability distribution P. Single-path faithfulness is defined as follows: Single-Path Faithfulness Assumption: A distribution P satisfies the single-path-faithfulness assumption with respect to a DAG G=(V,E) if i⊥⊥/j|S for all triples (i, j, S) with i,j∈V and S⊂V∖{i,j} such that there is a unique path that d-connects i and j given S. This assumption is satisfied for example in the Gaussian setting, since a partial correlation is a weighted sum of all paths between two vertices (Uhler et al. [2013]). We conjecture that the single-path faithfulness assumption is satisfied for all linear models. Proof of Theorem 3 Most of the proofs of Theorem 3 follow almost directly from results in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]). We require the following additional definition of a weaker form of faithfulness known as orientation faithfulness introduced in (Ramsey et al. [2006]). Orientation Faithfulness: DAG G=(V,E) satisfies the orientation faithfulness assumption with respect to distribution P if for all variables X1, X2, and X3 where X1−X2−X3 and all subsets S⊂V∖{1,3} such that X1 is d-connected to X3 given S, X1⊥⊥/X3|XS. For part (a), we prove the contra-positive. That is, if a graph does not satisfy frugality, it does not satisfy faithfulness. Assume G=(V,EG)∉GFr(P). Then there exists a Markovian DAG, H=(V,EH), such that (i,j)∉EH but e=(i,j)∈EG. Since (i,j)∉EH,Xi⊥⊥Xj|XS, where S are the parents of Xi and Xj, since H satisfies the Markov assumption. This implies that G does not satisfy adjancency faithfulness, since for a DAG to satisfy adjacency faithfulness, there can only be an edge, (i, j), if Xi⊥⊥/Xj|XS for all S⊂V∖{i,j}. Since adjacency faithfulness is a consequence of faithfulness, G∉GF(P). For (b), assume G∈GF(P). Then G satisfies adjacency faithfulness and orientation faithfulness. Following the proof in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished], Lemma 2.2), GFr(P) is contained in the Markov equivalence class of G. Hence GFr(P)⊂GF(P) which, when combined with (a), entails that GF(P)=GFr(P). See the DAG example in Figure 5 for (c).□ 1 Cases like these in which three events are pairwise uncorrelated, but where each event is correlated with the combination of the others are instances of Bernstein’s paradox. Some philosophers, such as Uffink ([1999]), have considered such cases to be troublesome for the principle of the common cause, and a test case for generalizations of it. The following discussion reveals that such cases are neither counterexamples to the PCC nor to the stronger CMC. Rather, they are failures of faithfulness (see Section 3). 2 Though we follow others (Spirtes and Zhang [2014]; Zhang [2013]) in limiting our discussion to ‘causally sufficient’ variable sets—that is, variable sets for which it is the case that every common cause of any two or more variables in V is in V—we believe it would be worthwhile to consider applications of frugality in contexts where causal sufficiency is not assumed. 3 Searching algorithms can broadly be divided into two classes of methods (or a hybrid of both): constraint-based methods and score-based methods. Constraint-based methods include the traditional SGS and PC algorithms and the more recent FCI algorithm. Faithfulness is the weakest known sufficient condition for constraint-based methods since it ensures that all conditional independence statements or ‘constraints’ are respected by the data. Score-based methods include greedy equivalence search, hill-climbing, and the more recent penalized ℓ0-based maximum likelihood method. They operate on the principle that each DAG is assigned a score and the highest scoring graph is selected. There is considerably less work on necessary and sufficient conditions for score-based methods; however, van de Geer and Bühlmann ([2013]) introduce the permutation beta-min condition for their ℓ0-based method. The virtues of frugality versus faithfulness in the context of searching algorithms is discussed in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]), where it is shown that (i) frugality out-performs faithfulness in terms of learning causal hypotheses if we ignore computational considerations, and (ii) frugality is a sufficient condition for a score-based method known as the SP algorithm introduced in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]) and is asymptotically equivalent to the permutation beta-min condition introduced by van de Geer and Bühlmann. For a more thorough discussion, see (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished]). 4 In this example, there is only one DAG in the Markov equivalence class of the true DAG. 5 Variable Y follows variable X in the partial ordering determined by a DAG if there is a causal arrow from X to Y, that is, X→Y. Raskutti and Uhler show how given a specification of the ordering over a set of variables, one can find a DAG that satisfies CMC. 6 Although the four-node Hesslow case is a detectable failure of faithfulness, the conservative PC algorithm makes assumptions that are weaker than faithfulness, so it does output a result in some cases where there is no faithful graph. 7 Pearl ([2000], p. 46) defends P-minimality on the grounds that it prefers simpler theories that are ‘more constraining and thus more falsifiable’. In the discussion, we advocate a similar basis for preferring simpler models. Nevertheless, cases such as the one depicted in Figure 8 reveal that it is not in general true that p-minimal models entail more constraints. 8 Frugality can be extended to allow for detectable failures if the set of most frugal DAGs contains two DAGs that belong to different Markov equivalence classes. This notion of detectable failures is discussed in (Raskutti and Uhler [unpublished], Section 2.2) and it is shown that many, but not all, detectable violations of faithfulness are also detectable violations of frugality. 9 The claim that faithfulness does not come in degrees may appear at odds with several recent developments in the literature. First, Steel ([2006]) and Andersen ([2013]) have distinguished between exact failures of faithfulness and ‘near failures’ of faithfulness in which two causal paths nearly cancel. When inferring CIs from finite data, one may not be able to distinguish between near cancellations and exact cancellations, and the former may be just as problematic as the latter for causal inference. Second, there are results concerning bounds on divergences from faithful surfaces (Uhler et al. [2013]). Neither of these developments are relevant to our claims in the present article. Here we assume knowledge of the probability distribution, and thus abstract away from concerns relating to inferring CIs from finite data. A model either is or is not faithful, notwithstanding further questions about how we know whether it is. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jiji Zhang and Jan Sprenger for reading prior drafts and their helpful discussion. During this project, Garvesh Raskutti was supported by the NSF-DMS 1407028 grant. Naftali Weinberger was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of the priority program ‘New Frameworks of Rationality’ (SPP 1516). References Andersen H. [ 2013]: ‘ When to Expect Violations of Causal Faithfulness and Why It Matters’, Philosophy of Science , 80, pp. 672– 83. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Dawid A. P. [ 1979]: ‘ Conditional Independence in Statistical Theory (with Discussion)’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B , 41, pp. 1– 31. Elwert F., Winship C. [ 2014]: ‘ Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable’, Annual Review of Sociology , 40, pp. 31– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Glymour C., Scheines R., Spirtes P., Kelly K. [ 1987]: Discovering Causal Structure , Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hesslow G. [ 1976]: ‘ Discussion: Two Notes on the Probabilistic Approach to Causality’, Philosophy of Science , 43, pp. 290– 2. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kiiveri H., Speed T., Carlin J. B. [ 1984]: ‘ Recursive Causal Models’, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society A , 36, pp. 30– 52. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pearl J. [ 1988]: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems , San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman. Pearl J. [ 2000]: Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popper K. [ 1959]: The Logic of Scientific Discovery , London: Routledge. Ramsey J., Zhang J., Spirtes P. [ 2006]: ‘ Adjancency-Faithfulness and Conservative Causal Inference’, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pp. 401– 8. Raskutti G., Uhler C. [ unpublished]: ‘Learning Directed Acyclic Graphs Based on Sparsest Permutations’. Spirtes P., Glymour C., Scheines R. [ 2000]: Causation, Prediction, and Search , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spirtes P., Zhang J. [ 2014]: ‘ A Uniformly Consistent Estimator of Causal Effects Under the k-Triangle Faithfulness Assumption’, Statistical Science , 29, pp. 662– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Steel D. [ 2006]: ‘ Homogeneity, Selection, and the Faithfulness Condition’, Minds and Machines , 16, pp. 303– 17. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Uffink J. [ 1999]: ‘ The Principle of the Common Cause Faces the Bernstein Paradox’, Philosophy of Science , 66, pp. 512– 25. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Uhler C., Raskutti G., Buhlmann P., Yu B. [ 2013]: ‘ Geometry of Faithfulness Assumption in Causal Inference’, Annals of Statistics , 41, pp. 436– 63. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Van de Geer S., Bühlmann P. [ 2013]: ‘ ℓ0-penalized Maximum Likelihood for Sparse Directed Acyclic Graphs’, The Annals of Statistics , 41, pp. 536– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Zhang J. [ 2013]: ‘ A Comparison of Three Occam’s Razors for Markovian Causal Models’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 64, pp. 423– 48. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Zhang J., Spirtes P. [ 2008]: ‘ Detection of Unfaithfulness and Robust Causal Inference’, Minds and Machines , 18, pp. 239– 71. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science – Oxford University Press

**Published: ** Apr 18, 2017

Loading...

personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly

**discover** and **read** the research

that matters to you.

Enjoy **affordable access** to

over 18 million articles from more than

**15,000 peer-reviewed journals**.

All for just $49/month

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from *SpringerNature*, *Elsevier*, *Wiley-Blackwell*, *Oxford University Press* and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

## “Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”

Daniel C.

## “Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”

@Phil_Robichaud

## “I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”

@deepthiw

## “My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”

@JoseServera

DeepDyve ## Freelancer | DeepDyve ## Pro | |
---|---|---|

Price | FREE | $49/month |

Save searches from | ||

Create lists to | ||

Export lists, citations | ||

Read DeepDyve articles | Abstract access only | Unlimited access to over |

20 pages / month | ||

PDF Discount | 20% off | |

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

System error. Please try again!

or

By signing up, you agree to DeepDyve’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Already have an account? Log in

Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.

To save an article, **log in** first, or **sign up** for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

ok to continue