Complexity Analysis of Probabilistic and Causal Reasoning with Summation Operators

Core Concepts

The core message of this paper is that the complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation operators remains equally difficult, but allowing free variables for random variable values results in an undecidable system.

Abstract

The paper analyzes the complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation operators. It builds on previous work that axiomatized increasingly expressive languages of causation and probability, and showed that reasoning in each causal language is as difficult as reasoning in its merely probabilistic or "correlational" counterpart.
The key insights are:

Introducing a summation operator to capture common devices like the do-calculus partially extends the earlier complexity results to causal and probabilistic languages with marginalization. The paper completes this extension, fully characterizing the complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation.

Surprisingly, allowing free variables for random variable values results in a system that is undecidable, so long as the ranges of these random variables are unrestricted. This is due to the fact that the problem of deciding whether a set of conditional independence statements implies another is undecidable in this setting.

The paper axiomatizes these languages featuring marginalization (or more generally summation), resolving open questions posed by previous work.

For the bounded case where variables have finite ranges, the paper shows that the satisfiability problem for the causal language with summation is complete for the complexity class succDR. This extends the previous results on the complexity of causal reasoning.

For the unbounded case, the paper shows that satisfiability for the probabilistic and causal languages with summation is recursively enumerable.

Stats

None.

Quotes

None.

Key Insights Distilled From

On Probabilistic and Causal Reasoning with Summation Operators

by Duli... at arxiv.org 05-07-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.03069.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How can the undecidability result for the system with free variables be leveraged to obtain other negative complexity results in causal reasoning

The undecidability result for the system with free variables can be leveraged to obtain other negative complexity results in causal reasoning by demonstrating the inherent complexity of reasoning with free variables in causal models. This result highlights the challenges and limitations of dealing with unrestricted ranges of random variables in causal reasoning. By showing that the system with free variables leads to undecidability, it underscores the computational complexity involved in handling such models. This can be used to establish the boundaries of what is computationally feasible in causal reasoning and to set realistic expectations for the complexity of causal inference tasks.

Are there any restrictions on the ranges of random variables that would make the system with free variables decidable

Restrictions on the ranges of random variables can potentially make the system with free variables decidable. By imposing constraints on the ranges of random variables, such as limiting them to finite and fixed values, the system with free variables may become decidable. When the ranges of random variables are restricted, the number of possible assignments and configurations decreases, which can simplify the computational complexity of reasoning with free variables. By confining the possible values that random variables can take, the system may become more manageable and amenable to decidable solutions.

What are the implications of the complexity characterizations in this paper for the practical application of causal reasoning tools like the do-calculus

The complexity characterizations in this paper have significant implications for the practical application of causal reasoning tools like the do-calculus. Understanding the computational complexity of probabilistic and causal reasoning with summation operators provides insights into the challenges and limitations of using these tools in real-world scenarios. The results suggest that reasoning with causal and probabilistic languages involving marginalization or summation can be equally difficult from a computational perspective. This underscores the importance of considering complexity issues when applying causal reasoning tools in practical settings. It also highlights the need for efficient algorithms and computational techniques to handle the complexity of causal inference tasks effectively.