We consider testing and learning problems on causal Bayesian networks as defined by Pearl (Pearl, 2009). Given a causal Bayesian network M on a graph with n discrete variables and bounded in-degree and bounded ``confounded components'', we show that O(log n) interventions on an unknown causal Bayesian network X on the same graph, and O(n/epsilon^2) samples per intervention, suffice to efficiently distinguish whether X=M or whether there exists some intervention under which X and M are farther than epsilon in total variation distance. We also obtain sample/time/intervention efficient algorithms for: (i) testing the identity of two unknown causal Bayesian networks on the same graph; and (ii) learning a causal Bayesian network on a given graph. Although our algorithms are non-adaptive, we show that adaptivity does not help in general: Omega(log n) interventions are necessary for testing the identity of two unknown causal Bayesian networks on the same graph, even adaptively. Our algorithms are enabled by a new subadditivity inequality for the squared Hellinger distance between two causal Bayesian networks.

A plethora of methods was developed for solving this problem, including the celebrated do-calculus [Pearl, 1995]. In practice, these results are not always applicable since they require a fully specified causal diagram as input, which is usually not available.

RCM. Finally, we illustrate the power of this conciliatory perspective by pinpointing

Causal models are crucial for understanding complex systems and identifying causal relationships among variables. Even though causal models are extremely popular, conditional probability calculation of formulas involving interventions pose significant challenges. In case of Causal Bayesian Networks (CBNs), Pearl assumes autonomy of mechanisms that determine interventions to calculate a range of probabilities. We show that by making simple yet often realistic independence assumptions, it is possible to uniquely estimate the probability of an interventional formula (including the well-studied notions of probability of sufficiency and necessity). We discuss when these assumptions are appropriate. Importantly, in many cases of interest, when the assumptions are appropriate, these probability estimates can be evaluated using observational data, which carries immense significance in scenarios where conducting experiments is impractical or unfeasible.

Causal effect identification considers whether an interventional probability distribution can be uniquely determined from a passively observed distribution in a given causal structure.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

The study of causal relations can be seen through the lens of learning andinference [16,21].

We introduce a principled approach for unsupervised structure learning of deep neural networks.