1 Day 2: Search June 9, 2015 Carnegie Mellon University Center for Causal Discovery.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Learning Causal Structure from Observational and Experimental Data Richard Scheines Carnegie Mellon University.
Advertisements

Discovering Cyclic Causal Models by Independent Components Analysis Gustavo Lacerda Peter Spirtes Joseph Ramsey Patrik O. Hoyer.
Topic Outline Motivation Representing/Modeling Causal Systems
Weakening the Causal Faithfulness Assumption
Outline 1)Motivation 2)Representing/Modeling Causal Systems 3)Estimation and Updating 4)Model Search 5)Linear Latent Variable Models 6)Case Study: fMRI.
BAYESIAN NETWORKS. Bayesian Network Motivation  We want a representation and reasoning system that is based on conditional independence  Compact yet.
Structure Learning Using Causation Rules Raanan Yehezkel PAML Lab. Journal Club March 13, 2003.
Peter Spirtes, Jiji Zhang 1. Faithfulness comes in several flavors and is a kind of principle that selects simpler (in a certain sense) over more complicated.
Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs)
Lecture 5: Causality and Feature Selection Isabelle Guyon
Introduction of Probabilistic Reasoning and Bayesian Networks
Learning Causality Some slides are from Judea Pearl’s class lecture
1 Automatic Causal Discovery Richard Scheines Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour Dept. of Philosophy & CALD Carnegie Mellon.
Chapter 8-3 Markov Random Fields 1. Topics 1. Introduction 1. Undirected Graphical Models 2. Terminology 2. Conditional Independence 3. Factorization.
1 Graphical Models in Data Assimilation Problems Alexander Ihler UC Irvine Collaborators: Sergey Kirshner Andrew Robertson Padhraic Smyth.
Bayesian Network Representation Continued
Mediating Between Causes and Probabilities: the Use of Graphical Models in Econometrics Alessio Moneta Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, and Sant’Anna.
Graphical Models Lei Tang. Review of Graphical Models Directed Graph (DAG, Bayesian Network, Belief Network) Typically used to represent causal relationship.
Ambiguous Manipulations
Inferring Causal Graphs Computing 882 Simon Fraser University Spring 2002.
1 gR2002 Peter Spirtes Carnegie Mellon University.
Causal Models, Learning Algorithms and their Application to Performance Modeling Jan Lemeire Parallel Systems lab November 15 th 2006.
Causal Modeling for Anomaly Detection Andrew Arnold Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University Summer Project with Naoki Abe Predictive Modeling.
1 Center for Causal Discovery: Summer Workshop June 8-11, 2015 Carnegie Mellon University.
CAUSAL SEARCH IN THE REAL WORLD. A menu of topics  Some real-world challenges:  Convergence & error bounds  Sample selection bias  Simpson’s paradox.
Bayes Net Perspectives on Causation and Causal Inference
1 Part 2 Automatically Identifying and Measuring Latent Variables for Causal Theorizing.
1 Tetrad: Machine Learning and Graphcial Causal Models Richard Scheines Joe Ramsey Carnegie Mellon University Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour.
Causal Inference and Graphical Models Peter Spirtes Carnegie Mellon University.
Multi-Layer Perceptrons Michael J. Watts
1 Tutorial: Causal Model Search Richard Scheines Carnegie Mellon University Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, Joe Ramsey, others.
1 Causal Data Mining Richard Scheines Dept. of Philosophy, Machine Learning, & Human-Computer Interaction Carnegie Mellon.
1 Center for Causal Discovery: Summer Workshop June 8-11, 2015 Carnegie Mellon University.
Nov. 13th, Causal Discovery Richard Scheines Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and many others Dept. of Philosophy & CALD Carnegie Mellon.
Unsupervised Learning: Clustering Some material adapted from slides by Andrew Moore, CMU. Visit for
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 10: Non-recursive Models.
Methodological Problems in Cognitive Psychology David Danks Institute for Human & Machine Cognition January 10, 2003.
Learning Linear Causal Models Oksana Kohutyuk ComS 673 Spring 2005 Department of Computer Science Iowa State University.
Ch 8. Graphical Models Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, C. M. Bishop, Revised by M.-O. Heo Summarized by J.W. Nam Biointelligence Laboratory,
Course files
Penn State - March 23, The TETRAD Project: Computational Aids to Causal Discovery Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, Richard Scheines and many others.
Learning the Structure of Related Tasks Presented by Lihan He Machine Learning Reading Group Duke University 02/03/2006 A. Niculescu-Mizil, R. Caruana.
Learning With Bayesian Networks Markus Kalisch ETH Zürich.
273 Discovery of Causal Structure Using Causal Probabilistic Network Induction AMIA 2003, Machine Learning Tutorial Constantin F. Aliferis & Ioannis Tsamardinos.
INTERVENTIONS AND INFERENCE / REASONING. Causal models  Recall from yesterday:  Represent relevance using graphs  Causal relevance ⇒ DAGs  Quantitative.
Exploratory studies: you have empirical data and you want to know what sorts of causal models are consistent with it. Confirmatory tests: you have a causal.
Talking Points Joseph Ramsey. LiNGAM Most of the algorithms included in Tetrad (other than KPC) assume causal graphs are to be inferred from conditional.
Lecture 2: Statistical learning primer for biologists
1 BN Semantics 2 – The revenge of d-separation Graphical Models – Carlos Guestrin Carnegie Mellon University September 20 th, 2006 Readings: K&F:
276 Causal Discovery Methods Using Causal Probabilistic Networks MEDINFO 2004, T02: Machine Learning Methods for Decision Support and Discovery Constantin.
The Visual Causality Analyst: An Interactive Interface for Causal Reasoning Jun Wang, Stony Brook University Klaus Mueller, Stony Brook University, SUNY.
1 Acceleration of Inductive Inference of Causal Diagrams Olexandr S. Balabanov Institute of Software Systems of NAS of Ukraine
1 BN Semantics 2 – Representation Theorem The revenge of d-separation Graphical Models – Carlos Guestrin Carnegie Mellon University September 17.
1 BN Semantics 1 Graphical Models – Carlos Guestrin Carnegie Mellon University September 15 th, 2006 Readings: K&F: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.
Variable selection in Regression modelling Simon Thornley.
1 Day 2: Search June 9, 2015 Carnegie Mellon University Center for Causal Discovery.
1Causal Inference and the KMSS. Predicting the future with the right model Stijn Meganck Vrije Universiteit Brussel Department of Electronics and Informatics.
1 Day 2: Search June 14, 2016 Carnegie Mellon University Center for Causal Discovery.
Mediation: Assumptions David A. Kenny davidakenny.net.
Day 3: Search Continued Center for Causal Discovery June 15, 2015
Workshop Files
Markov Properties of Directed Acyclic Graphs
Workshop Files
Center for Causal Discovery: Summer Short Course/Datathon
Center for Causal Discovery: Summer Short Course/Datathon
Causal Data Mining Richard Scheines
Causal Discovery Richard Scheines Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour,
Extra Slides.
Searching for Graphical Causal Models of Education Data
BN Semantics 2 – The revenge of d-separation
Presentation transcript:

1 Day 2: Search June 9, 2015 Carnegie Mellon University Center for Causal Discovery

Outline Day 2: Search 1.Bridge Principles: Causation  Probability 2.D-separation 3.Model Equivalence 4.Search Basics (PC, GES) 5.Latent Variable Model Search (FCI) 6.Examples 2

3 Tetrad Demo and Hands On

4 Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Go to “estimation2” 2)Add Search node (from Data1) - Choose and execute one of the “Pattern searches” 3)Add a “Graph Manipulation” node to search result: “choose Dag in Pattern” 4)Add a PM to GraphManip 5)Estimate the PM on the data 6)Compare model-fit to model fit for true model

5 Backround Knowledge Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Create new session 2)Select “Search from Simulated Data” from Template menu 3)Build graph below, PM, IM, and generate sample data N=1,000. 4)Execute PC search,  =.05

6 Backround Knowledge Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Add “Knowledge” node – as below 2)Create “Required edge X3  X1 as shown below. 3)Execute PC search again,  =.05 4)Compare results (Search2) to previous search (Search1)

7 Backround Knowledge Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Add new “Knowledge” node 2)Create “Tiers” as shown below. 3)Execute PC search again,  =.05 4)Compare results (Search2) to previous search (Search1)

8 Backround Knowledge Direct and Indirect Consequences True Graph PC Output Background Knowledge PC Output No Background Knowledge

9 Backround Knowledge Direct and Indirect Consequences True Graph PC Output Background Knowledge PC Output No Background Knowledge Direct Consequence Of Background Knowledge Indirect Consequence Of Background Knowledge

10 Charitable Giving (Search) 1)Load in charity data 2)Add search node 3)Enter Background Knowledge: Tangibility is exogenous Amount Donated is endogenous only Tangibility  Imaginability is required 4)Choose and execute one of the “Pattern searches” 5)Add a “Graph Manipulation” node to search result: “choose Dag in Pattern” 6)Add a PM to GraphManip 7)Estimate the PM on the data 8)Compare model-fit to hypothetical model

11 1) Adjacency phase 2) Orientation phase Constraint-based Search for Patterns

Constraint-based Search for Patterns: Adjacency phase X and Y are not adjacent if they are independent conditional on any subset that doesn’t X and Y 1) Adjacency Begin with a fully connected undirected graph Remove adjacency X-Y if X _||_ Y | any set S

14 2) Orientation Collider test: Find triples X – Y – Z, orient according to whether the set that separated X-Z contains Y Away from collider test: Find triples X  Y – Z, orient Y – Z connection via collider test Repeat until no further orientations Apply Meek Rules Constraint-based Search for Patterns: Orientation phase

Search: Orientation Patterns Y Unshielded X Y Z Test: X _||_ Z | S, is Y  S Yes Non-Collider XY Z X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z Collider X Y Z No

Search: Orientation Away from Collider

Search: Orientation X1 _||_ X4 | X3 X2 _||_ X4 | X3 After Adjacency Phase X1 _||_ X2 Collider Test: X1 – X3 – X2 Away from Collider Test: X1  X3 – X4 X2  X3 – X4

Away from Collider Power! X 2 – X 3 oriented as X 2  X 3 Why does this test also show that X 2 and X 3 are not confounded?

19 Independence Equivalence Classes: Patterns & PAGs Patterns (Verma and Pearl, 1990): graphical representation of d-separation equivalence among models with no latent common causes PAGs: (Richardson 1994) graphical representation of a d- separation equivalence class that includes models with latent common causes and sample selection bias that are d-separation equivalent over a set of measured variables X

20 PAGs: Partial Ancestral Graphs

21 PAGs: Partial Ancestral Graphs

22 PAGs: Partial Ancestral Graphs What PAG edges mean.

PAG Search: Orientation PAGs Y Unshielded X Y Z X _||_ Z | Y Collider Non-Collider X Y Z X Y Z

PAG Search: Orientation X1 _||_ X4 | X3 X2 _||_ X4 | X3 After Adjacency Phase X1 _||_ X2 Collider Test: X1 – X3 – X2 Away from Collider Test: X1  X3 – X4 X2  X3 – X4

25 Interesting Cases X Y Z L X Y Z2 L1 M1 M2 M4 Z1 L2 X1 Y2 L1 Y1 X2 X Y Z1 M3 Z2 L L

26 Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Create new session 2)Select “Search from Simulated Data” from Template menu 3)Build graphs for M1, M2, M3 “interesting cases”, parameterize, instantiate, and generate sample data N=1,000. 4)Execute PC search,  =.05 5)Execute FCI search,  =.05 X Y Z L M1 M2 X1 Y2 L1 Y1 X2 L X Y Z1 M3 Z2 L

27 Regression & Causal Inference

28 Regression & Causal Inference 2.So, identifiy and measure potential confounders Z: a)prior to X, b)associated with X, c)associated with Y Typical (non-experimental) strategy: 1.Establish a prima facie case (X associated with Y) 3. Statistically adjust for Z (multiple regression) But, omitted variable bias

29 Regression & Causal Inference Multiple regression or any similar strategy is provably unreliable for causal inference regarding X  Y, with covariates Z, unless: X prior to Y X, Z, and Y are causally sufficient (no confounding)

30 Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Create new session 2)Select “Search from Simulated Data” from Template menu 3)Build a graph for M4 “interesting cases”, parameterize as SEM, instantiate, and generate sample data N=1,000. 4)Execute PC search,  =.05 5)Execute FCI search,  =.05

31 Summary of Search

32 Causal Search from Passive Observation PC, GES  Patterns (Markov equivalence class - no latent confounding) FCI  PAGs (Markov equivalence - including confounders and selection bias) CCD  Linear cyclic models (no confounding) BPC, FOFC, FTFC  (Equivalence class of linear latent variable models) Lingam  unique DAG (no confounding – linear non-Gaussian – faithfulness not needed) LVLingam  set of DAGs (confounders allowed) CyclicLingam  set of DGs (cyclic models, no confounding) Non-linear additive noise models  unique DAG Most of these algorithms are pointwise consistent – uniform consistent algorithms require stronger assumptions

33 Causal Search from Manipulations/Interventions Do(X=x) : replace P(X | parents(X)) with P(X=x) = 1.0 Randomize(X): (replace P(X | parents(X)) with P M (X), e.g., uniform) Soft interventions (replace P(X | parents(X)) with P M (X | parents(X), I), P M (I)) Simultaneous interventions (reduces the number of experiments required to be guaranteed to find the truth with an independence oracle from N-1 to 2 log(N) Sequential interventions Sequential, conditional interventions Time sensitive interventions What sorts of manipulation/interventions have been studied?

34 Tetrad Demo and Hands-on 1)Search for models of Charitable Giving 2)Search for models of Foreign Investment 3)Search for models of Lead and IQ