Elie Wolfe

Marina Maciel Ansanelli, Elie Wolfe, Robert W. Spekkens

What types of differences among causal structures with latent variables are impossible to distinguish by statistical data obtained by probing each visible variable? If the probing scheme is simply passive observation, then it is well-known that many different causal structures can realize the same joint probability distributions. Even for the simplest case of two visible variables, for instance, one cannot distinguish between one variable being a causal parent of the other and the two variables sharing a latent common cause. However, it is possible to distinguish between these two causal structures if we have recourse to more powerful probing schemes, such as the possibility of intervening on one of the variables and observing the other. Herein, we address the question of which causal structures remain indistinguishable even given the most informative types of probing schemes on the visible variables. We find that two causal structures remain indistinguishable if and only if they are both associated with the same mDAG structure (as defined by Evans (2016)). We also consider the question of when one causal structure dominates another in the sense that it can realize all of the joint probability distributions that can be realized by the other using a given probing scheme. (Equivalence of causal structures is the special case of mutual dominance.) Finally, we investigate to what extent one can weaken the probing schemes implemented on the visible variables and still have the same discrimination power as a maximally informative probing scheme.

Marina Maciel Ansanelli, Elie Wolfe, Robert W. Spekkens

For two causal structures with the same set of visible variables, one is said to observationally dominate the other if the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the first contains the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the second. Knowing such dominance relations is useful for adjudicating between these structures given observational data. We here consider the problem of determining the partial order of equivalence classes of causal structures with latent variables relative to observational dominance. We provide a complete characterization of the dominance order in the case of three visible variables, and a partial characterization in the case of four visible variables. Our techniques also help to identify which observational equivalence classes have a set of realizable distributions that is characterized by nontrivial inequality constraints, analogous to Bell inequalities and instrumental inequalities. We find evidence that as one increases the number of visible variables, the equivalence classes satisfying nontrivial inequality constraints become ubiquitous. (Because such classes are the ones for which there can be a difference in the distributions that are quantumly and classically realizable, this implies that the potential for quantum-classical gaps is also ubiquitous.) Furthermore, we find evidence that constraint-based causal discovery algorithms that rely solely on conditional independence constraints have a significantly weaker distinguishing power among observational equivalence classes than algorithms that go beyond these (i.e., algorithms that also leverage nested Markov constraints and inequality constraints).

Beata Zjawin, Elie Wolfe, Robert W. Spekkens

Causal models with unobserved variables impose nontrivial constraints on the distributions over the observed variables. When a common cause of two variables is unobserved, it is impossible to uncover the causal relation between them without making additional assumptions about the model. In this work, we consider causal models with a promise that unobserved variables have known cardinalities. We derive inequality constraints implied by d-separation in such models. Moreover, we explore the possibility of leveraging this result to study causal influence in models that involve quantum systems.

Noam Finkelstein, Beata Zjawin, Elie Wolfe et al.

Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) with hidden variables are often used to characterize causal relations between variables in a system. When some variables are unobserved, DAGs imply a notoriously complicated set of constraints on the distribution of observed variables. In this work, we present entropic inequality constraints that are implied by $e$-separation relations in hidden variable DAGs with discrete observed variables. The constraints can intuitively be understood to follow from the fact that the capacity of variables along a causal pathway to convey information is restricted by their entropy; e.g. at the extreme case, a variable with entropy $0$ can convey no information. We show how these constraints can be used to learn about the true causal model from an observed data distribution. In addition, we propose a measure of causal influence called the minimal mediary entropy, and demonstrate that it can augment traditional measures such as the average causal effect.

Rafael Chaves, George Moreno, Emanuele Polino et al.

Bell's theorem is typically understood as the proof that quantum theory is incompatible with local-hidden-variable models. More generally, we can see the violation of a Bell inequality as witnessing the impossibility of explaining quantum correlations with classical causal models. The violation of a Bell inequality, however, does not exclude classical models where some level of measurement dependence is allowed, that is, the choice made by observers can be correlated with the source generating the systems to be measured. Here, we show that the level of measurement dependence can be quantitatively upper bounded if we arrange the Bell test within a network. Furthermore, we also prove that these results can be adapted in order to derive nonlinear Bell inequalities for a large class of causal networks and to identify quantumly realizable correlations that violate them.