Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Errata: older papers by Shpitser, Tian, and Pearl #207

Open
rjc955 opened this issue Jan 28, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Errata: older papers by Shpitser, Tian, and Pearl #207

rjc955 opened this issue Jan 28, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@rjc955
Copy link
Contributor

rjc955 commented Jan 28, 2024

While implementing a set of algorithms by Correa, Lee, and Bareinboim, we reviewed sections of some papers they cited and uncovered a few errata.

Errata

A. Shpitser and Pearl 2008: Complete Identification Methods for the Causal Hierarchy

  1. p. 1953: the last line reads, "Putting everything together, we obtain: $P_{x}{(y_{1},y{2}) = \Sigma_{w_{2}}{P(y_{1},w_{2})}\Sigma_{w_1}}{P(y_{1}|x,w_{1})P(w_{1})}$." We think it should read: $P_{x}{(y_{1},y{2}) = \Sigma_{w_{2}}{P(y_{2},w_{2})}\Sigma_{w_1}}{P(y_{1}|x,w_{1})P(w_{1})}$.

B. Tian and Pearl 2003: On the Identification of Causal Effects

  1. p. 26: the Identify() function technically requires an additional parameter, $G$, in order to compute $A=An(C){G{T}}$ at one point. Later publications, such as Correa and Barenboim 2020, pick up on this fact.

C. Inconsistencies in terminology across papers

  1. (Restated from Issue Errata: "Counterfactual Transportability: A Formal Approach" and "General Transportability of Soft Interventions: Completeness Results" #206) There seems to be an inconsistency in how different authors use the term "c-factor." Tian and Pearl (2002) define "c-factor" as follows: "We will call $Q[S_{i}]$ the c-factor corresponding to the c-component $S_{i}$." In the rest of the paper, each time they refer to a "c-factor" it is to apply the $Q$ function to a c-component. In "General Transportability of Soft Interventions: Completeness Results," (page 6), Correa and Bareinboim cite Tian and Pearl's paper in referencing "the concept of C-factors and C-components," and they use "C-factor" to denote the Q function applied to any set of vertices in a graph. In the "Causal Effect" R package, Santu Tikka denotes the compute.c.factor() function to only apply to c-components. The confusion may originate in the ambiguity of Tian and Pearl's original definition of "c-factor": did they intend for "c-factor" to denote the function $Q$, or did they intend for the $Q$ function to be a "c-factor" only when applied to a c-component?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant