Judea Pearl’s research while affiliated with University of California, Los Angeles and other places

Personalized decision making targets the behavior of a specific individual, while population-based decision making concerns a subpopulation resembling that individual. This article clarifies the distinction between the two and explains why the former leads to more informed decisions. We further show that by combining experimental and observational studies, we can obtain valuable information about individual behavior and, consequently, improve decisions over those obtained from experimental studies alone. In particular, we show examples where such a combination discriminates between individuals who can benefit from a treatment and those who cannot – information that would not be revealed by experimental studies alone. We outline areas where this method could be of benefit to both policy makers and individuals involved.

This note aims to assist applied econometricians in understanding the tools of causal inference and to extend those discussed in Nick Huntington-Klein's review of The Book of Why.

Identifying the effects of causes and causes of effects is vital in virtually every scientific field. Often, however, the needed probabilities may not be fully identifiable from the data sources available. This paper shows how partial identifiability is still possible for several probabilities of causation. We term this epsilon-identifiability and demonstrate its usefulness in cases where the behavior of certain subpopulations can be restricted to within some narrow bounds. In particular, we show how unidentifiable causal effects and counterfactual probabilities can be narrowly bounded when such allowances are made. Often those allowances are easily measured and reasonably assumed. Finally, epsilon-identifiability is applied to the unit selection problem.

Probabilities of causation play a crucial role in modern decision-making. Pearl defined three binary probabilities of causation, the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN). These probabilities were then bounded by Tian and Pearl using a combination of experimental and observational data. However, observational data are not always available in practice; in such a case, Tian and Pearl's Theorem provided valid but less effective bounds using pure experimental data. In this paper, we discuss the conditions that observational data are worth considering to improve the quality of the bounds. More specifically, we defined the expected improvement of the bounds by assuming the observational distributions are uniformly distributed on their feasible interval. We further applied the proposed theorems to the unit selection problem defined by Li and Pearl.

The probabilities of causation are commonly used to solve decision-making problems. Tian and Pearl derived sharp bounds for the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity (PN) using experimental and observational data. The assumption is that one is in possession of a large enough sample to permit an accurate estimation of the experimental and observational distributions. In this study, we present a method for determining the sample size needed for such estimation, when a given confidence interval (CI) is specified. We further show by simulation that the proposed sample size delivered stable estimations of the bounds of PNS.

In a recent issue of this journal, Philip Dawid (2021) proposes a framework for causal inference that is based on statistical decision theory and that is, in many aspects, compatible with the familiar framework of causal graphs (e.g., Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs)). This editorial compares the methodological features of the two frameworks as well as their epistemological basis.

Personalized decision making targets the behavior of a specific individual, while population-based decision making concerns a sub-population resembling that individual. This paper clarifies the distinction between the two and explains why the former leads to more informed decisions. We further show that by combining experimental and observational studies we can obtain valuable information about individual behavior and, consequently, improve decisions over those obtained from experimental studies alone.

The problem of individualization is crucial in almost every field of science. Identifying causes of specific observed events is likewise essential for accurate decision making as well as explanation. However, such tasks invoke counterfactual relationships, and are therefore indeterminable from population data. For example, the probability of benefiting from a treatment concerns an individual having a favorable outcome if treated and an unfavorable outcome if untreated; it cannot be estimated from experimental data, even when conditioned on fine-grained features, because we cannot test both possibilities for an individual. Tian and Pearl provided bounds on this and other probabilities of causation using a combination of experimental and observational data. Those bounds, though tight, can be narrowed significantly when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. This added information may provide the power to solve central problems, such as explainable AI, legal responsibility, and personalized medicine, all of which demand counterfactual logic. This paper derives, analyzes, and characterizes these new bounds, and illustrates some of their practical applications.

Many students of statistics and econometrics express frustration with the way a problem known as “bad control” is treated in the traditional literature. The issue arises when the addition of a variable to a regression equation produces an unintended discrepancy between the regression coefficient and the effect that the coefficient is intended to represent. Avoiding such discrepancies presents a challenge to all analysts in the data intensive sciences. This note describes graphical tools for understanding, visualizing, and resolving the problem through a series of illustrative examples. By making this “crash course” accessible to instructors and practitioners, we hope to avail these tools to a broader community of scientists concerned with the causal interpretation of regression models.