The problem of individualization is recognized as crucial in almost every field. Identifying causes of effects in specific events is likewise essential for accurate decision making. However, such estimates 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. Experiments conditioning on fine-grained features are fundamentally inadequate because we can't 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. Even though those bounds were proven tight, narrower bounds, sometimes significantly so, can be achieved when structural information is available in the form of a causal model. This has the power to solve central problems, such as explainable AI, legal responsibility, and personalized medicine, all of which demand counterfactual logic. We analyze and expand on existing research by applying bounds to the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS) along with graphical criteria and practical applications.
翻译:个人化问题几乎在每一个领域都被认为是至关重要的。确定具体事件的影响原因对准确决策同样至关重要。然而,这种估计援引了反事实关系,因此无法从人口数据中确定。例如,从治疗中受益的概率涉及一个人如果得到治疗就会获得有利结果,如果得不到治疗则会产生不利结果。以细微特征为条件的实验根本不够充分,因为我们无法同时测试一个人的可能性。天和珍珠利用实验和观察数据相结合,提供了这一因果关系和其他因果关系的界限。即使这些界限被证明是紧凑的,但当结构信息以因果关系模式的形式出现时,这些界限也能够实现,有时明显如此。这具有解决核心问题的力量,例如可解释的AI、法律责任和个性化医学,所有这些都需要反事实逻辑。我们通过对必要性和充足概率的界限(PNS)以及图形标准和实际应用来分析和扩展现有的研究。