mag
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- Asia > China (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > San Mateo County > San Mateo (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
Limitation of intervention not changing parent set: There are many settings in the empirical sciences where
We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and constructive feedback. Below, we address the main issues raised and clarify some misunderstandings. Also, the work of Y ang et al. (2018) characterizes soft interventions in systems without latent variables. Mooij et al. (2013) discussed interventions of this nature in the context of equilibrium in cyclic causal models. Usage of MAGs: The reviewer's observation only holds for hard interventions.
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangdong Province > Guangzhou (0.04)
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangdong Province > Guangzhou (0.04)
- Asia > Azerbaijan > Mountainous Shirvan Economic Region > Agsu District > Agsu (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Amherst (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Amherst (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Azerbaijan > Mountainous Shirvan Economic Region > Agsu District > Agsu (0.04)
Appendix A Removable Variables In this section, we first prove the proposed graphical representation for a removable variable in a MAG
(Theorem 1). A.1 Graphical representation Theorem 1. V ertex X is removable in a MAG M over the variables V, if and only if 1. for any Y 2 Adj ( X) and Z 2 Ch ( X) [ N ( X) \{ Y }, Y and Z are adjacent, and 2. Let H denote the induced subgraph of M over V \{ X } . Since X is removable in M, by definition of removability, ( Y? M, Lemma 6 implies that u is not m-connecting relative to W in H . (: Lemma 6 implies that u is not m-connecting relative to W in M . This contradiction proves that X cannot have a descendant in { Y,Z }[ W, which implies that X blocks u in M .
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)