Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #714748. 	[Title] CAUSATION, ACTION, AND COUNTERFACTUALS [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #653441. 	[Title] FROM BAYESIAN NETWORKS TO CAUSAL NETWORKS [Abstract] This paper demonstrates the use of graphs as a mathematical tool for expressing independencies, and as a formal language for communicating and processing causal information for decision analysis. We show how complex information about external interventions can be organized and represented graphically and, conversely, how the graphical representation can be used to facilitate quantitative predictions of the effects of interventions. We first review the theory of Bayesian networks and show that directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) offer an economical scheme for representing conditional independence assumptions and for deducing and displaying all the logical consequences of such assumptions. We then introduce the manipulative account of causation and show that any DAG defines a simple transformation which tells us how the probability distribution will change as a result of external interventions in the system. Using this transformation it is possible to quantify, from non-experimental data, the effects of external interventions and to specify conditions under which randomized experiments are not necessary. As an example, we show how the effect of smoking on lung cancer can be quantified from non-experimental data, using a minimal set of qualitative assumptions. Finally, the paper offers a graphical interpretation for Rubin's model of causal effects, and demonstrates its equivalence to the manipulative account of causation. We exemplify the tradeoffs between the two approaches by deriving nonparametric bounds on treatment effects under conditions of imperfect compliance. fl Portions of this paper were presented at the 49th Session of the International Statistical Institute, Florence, Italy, August 25 - September 3, 1993. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #189571. 	[Title] Probabilistic evaluation of counterfactual queries [Abstract] To appear in the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle, WA, July 31 August 4, 1994. Technical Report R-213-A April, 1994 Abstract Evaluation of counterfactual queries (e.g., "If A were true, would C have been true?") is important to fault diagnosis, planning, and determination of liability. We present a formalism that uses probabilistic causal networks to evaluate one's belief that the counterfactual consequent, C, would have been true if the antecedent, A, were true. The antecedent of the query is interpreted as an external action that forces the proposition A to be true, which is consistent with Lewis' Miraculous Analysis. This formalism offers a concrete embodiment of the "closest world" approach which (1) properly reflects common understanding of causal influences, (2) deals with the uncertainties inherent in the world, and (3) is amenable to machine representation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #189572. 	[Title] Counterfactuals and Policy Analysis in Structural Models [Abstract] Evaluation of counterfactual queries (e.g., "If A were true, would C have been true?") is important to fault diagnosis, planning, determination of liability, and policy analysis. We present a method for evaluating counter-factuals when the underlying causal model is represented by structural models a nonlinear generalization of the simultaneous equations models commonly used in econometrics and social sciences. This new method provides a coherent means for evaluating policies involving the control of variables which, prior to enacting the policy were influenced by other variables in the system. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #16008. 	[Title] [12] J. Whittaker. Graphical Models in Applied Mathematical Multivariate Statis- [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1134348. 	[Title] On The Foundation Of Structural Equation Models or [Abstract] When Can We Give Causal Interpretation Abstract The assumptions underlying statistical estimation are of fundamentally different character from the causal assumptions that underly structural equation models (SEM). The differences have been blurred through the years for the lack of a mathematical notation capable of distinguishing causal from equational relationships. Recent advances in graphical methods provide formal explication of these differences, and are destined to have profound impact on SEM's practice and philosophy. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #714256. 	[Title] A Probabilistic Calculus of Actions [Abstract] We present a symbolic machinery that admits both probabilistic and causal information about a given domain, and produces probabilistic statements about the effect of actions and the impact of observations. The calculus admits two types of conditioning operators: ordinary Bayes conditioning, P (yjX = x), which represents the observation X = x, and causal conditioning, P (yjdo(X = x)), read: the probability of Y = y conditioned on holding X constant (at x) by deliberate action. Given a mixture of such observational and causal sentences, together with the topology of the causal graph, the calculus derives new conditional probabilities of both types, thus enabling one to quantify the effects of actions and observations. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #714260. 	[Title] Probabilistic evaluation of sequential plans from causal models with hidden variables [Abstract] The paper concerns the probabilistic evaluation of plans in the presence of unmeasured variables, each plan consisting of several concurrent or sequential actions. We establish a graphical criterion for recognizing when the effects of a given plan can be predicted from passive observations on measured variables only. When the criterion is satisfied, a closed-form expression is provided for the probability that the plan will achieve a specified goal. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #23070. 	[Title] A Knowledge-Based Framework for Belief Change Part I: Foundations [Abstract] We propose a general framework in which to study belief change. We begin by defining belief in terms of knowledge and plausibility: an agent believes ' if he knows that ' is true in all the worlds he considers most plausible. We then consider some properties defining the interaction between knowledge and plausibility, and show how these properties affect the properties of belief. In particular, we show that by assuming two of the most natural properties, belief becomes a KD45 operator. Finally, we add time to the picture. This gives us a framework in which we can talk about knowledge, plausibility (and hence belief), and time, which extends the framework of Halpern and Fagin [HF89] for modeling knowledge in multi-agent systems. We show that our framework is quite expressive and lets us model in a natural way a number of different scenarios for belief change. For example, we show how we can capture an analogue to prior probabilities, which can be updated by "conditioning". In a related paper, we show how the two best studied scenarios, belief revision and belief update, fit into the framework. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65057. 	[Title] Abduction as Belief Revision [Abstract] We propose a model of abduction based on the revision of the epistemic state of an agent. Explanations must be sufficient to induce belief in the sentence to be explained (for instance, some observation), or ensure its consistency with other beliefs, in a manner that adequately accounts for factual and hypothetical sentences. Our model will generate explanations that nonmonotonically predict an observation, thus generalizing most current accounts, which require some deductive relationship between explanation and observation. It also provides a natural preference ordering on explanations, defined in terms of normality or plausibility. To illustrate the generality of our approach, we reconstruct two of the key paradigms for model-based diagnosis, abductive and consistency-based diagnosis, within our framework. This reconstruction provides an alternative semantics for both and extends these systems to accommodate our predictive explanations and semantic preferences on explanations. It also illustrates how more general information can be incorporated in a principled manner. fl Some parts of this paper appeared in preliminary form as Abduction as Belief Revision: A Model of Preferred Explanations, Proc. of Eleventh National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), Washington, DC, pp.642-648 (1993). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #134307. 	[Title] Generalized Update: Belief Change in Dynamic Settings [Abstract] Belief revision and belief update have been proposed as two types of belief change serving different purposes. Belief revision is intended to capture changes of an agent's belief state reflecting new information about a static world. Belief update is intended to capture changes of belief in response to a changing world. We argue that both belief revision and belief update are too restrictive; routine belief change involves elements of both. We present a model for generalized update that allows updates in response to external changes to inform the agent about its prior beliefs. This model of update combines aspects of revision and update, providing a more realistic characterization of belief change. We show that, under certain assumptions, the original update postulates are satisfied. We also demonstrate that plain revision and plain update are special cases of our model, in a way that formally verifies the intuition that revision is suitable for static belief change. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #137130. 	[Title] On the Semantics of Belief Revision Systems [Abstract] We consider belief revision operators that satisfy the Alchourron-Gardenfors-Makinson postulates, and present an epistemic logic in which, for any such revision operator, the result of a revision can be described by a sentence in the logic. In our logic, the fact that the agent's set of beliefs is is represented by the sentence O, where O is Levesque's `only know' operator. Intuitively, O is read as ` is all that is believed.' The fact that the agent believes is represented by the sentence B , read in the usual way as ` is believed'. The connective represents update as defined by Katsuno and Mendelzon. The revised beliefs are represented by the sentence O B . We show that for every revision operator that satisfies the AGM postulates, there is a model for our epistemic logic such that the beliefs implied by the sentence O B in this model correspond exactly to the sentences implied by the theory that results from revising by . This means that reasoning about changes in the agent's beliefs reduces to model checking of certain epistemic sentences. The negative result in the paper is that this type of formal account of revision cannot be extended to the situation where the agent is able to reason about its beliefs. A fully introspective agent cannot use our construction to reason about the results of its own revisions, on pain of triviality. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #134316. 	[Title] A Qualitative Markov Assumption and Its Implications for Belief Change [Abstract] The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In recent years, two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief update, have been studied in detail. Roughly speaking, revision treats a surprising observation as a sign that previous beliefs were wrong, while update treats a surprising observation as an indication that the world has changed. In general, we would expect that an agent making an observation may both want to revise some earlier beliefs and assume that some change has occurred in the world. We define a novel approach to belief change that allows us to do this, by applying ideas from probability theory in a qualitative settings. The key idea is to use a qualitative Markov assumption, which says that state transitions are independent. We show that a recent approach to modeling qualitative uncertainty using plausibility measures allows us to make such a qualitative Markov assumption in a relatively straightforward way, and show how the Markov assumption can be used to provide an attractive belief-change model. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #521855. 	[Title] Decision-Theoretic Foundations for Causal Reasoning [Abstract] We present a definition of cause and effect in terms of decision-theoretic primitives and thereby provide a principled foundation for causal reasoning. Our definition departs from the traditional view of causation in that causal assertions may vary with the set of decisions available. We argue that this approach provides added clarity to the notion of cause. Also in this paper, we examine the encoding of causal relationships in directed acyclic graphs. We describe a special class of influence diagrams, those in canonical form, and show its relationship to Pearl's representation of cause and effect. Finally, we show how canonical form facilitates counterfactual reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #714289. 	[Title] ASPECTS OF GRAPHICAL MODELS CONNECTED WITH CAUSALITY [Abstract] This paper demonstrates the use of graphs as a mathematical tool for expressing independenices, and as a formal language for communicating and processing causal information in statistical analysis. We show how complex information about external interventions can be organized and represented graphically and, conversely, how the graphical representation can be used to facilitate quantitative predictions of the effects of interventions. We first review the Markovian account of causation and show that directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) offer an economical scheme for representing conditional independence assumptions and for deducing and displaying all the logical consequences of such assumptions. We then introduce the manipulative account of causation and show that any DAG defines a simple transformation which tells us how the probability distribution will change as a result of external interventions in the system. Using this transformation it is possible to quantify, from non-experimental data, the effects of external interventions and to specify conditions under which randomized experiments are not necessary. Finally, the paper offers a graphical interpretation for Rubin's model of causal effects, and demonstrates its equivalence to the manipulative account of causation. We exemplify the tradeoffs between the two approaches by deriving nonparametric bounds on treatment effects under conditions of imperfect compliance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #65074. 	[Title] Rank-based systems: A simple approach to belief revision, belief update, and reasoning about evidence and actions. [Abstract] We describe a ranked-model semantics for if-then rules admitting exceptions, which provides a coherent framework for many facets of evidential and causal reasoning. Rule priorities are automatically extracted form the knowledge base to facilitate the construction and retraction of plausible beliefs. To represent causation, the formalism incorporates the principle of Markov shielding which imposes a stratified set of independence constraints on rankings of interpretations. We show how this formalism resolves some classical problems associated with specificity, prediction and abduction, and how it offers a natural way of unifying belief revision, belief update, and reasoning about actions. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1154232. 	[Title]  [Abstract] In the Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelli- gence (UAI-94), Seattle, WA, 46-54, July 29-31, 1994. Technical Report R-213-B April, 1994 Abstract Evaluation of counterfactual queries (e.g., "If A were true, would C have been true?") is important to fault diagnosis, planning, and determination of liability. In this paper we present methods for computing the probabilities of such queries using the formulation proposed in [Balke and Pearl, 1994], where the antecedent of the query is interpreted as an external action that forces the proposition A to be true. When a prior probability is available on the causal mechanisms governing the domain, counterfactual probabilities can be evaluated precisely. However, when causal knowledge is specified as conditional probabilities on the observables, only bounds can computed. This paper develops techniques for evaluating these bounds, and demonstrates their use in two applications: (1) the determination of treatment efficacy from studies in which subjects may choose their own treatment, and (2) the determination of liability in product-safety litigation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #519353. 	[Title] Defining Explanation in Probabilistic Systems [Abstract] As probabilistic systems gain popularity and are coming into wider use, the need for a mechanism that explains the system's findings and recommendations becomes more critical. The system will also need a mechanism for ordering competing explanations. We examine two representative approaches to explanation in the literature one due to G ardenfors and one due to Pearland show that both suffer from significant problems. We propose an approach to defining a notion of better explanation that combines some of the features of both together with more recent work by Pearl and others on causality. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1154233. 	[Title] Bayesian Networks [Abstract]  Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #142268. 	[Title] Plausibility Measures and Default Reasoning [Abstract] We introduce a new approach to modeling uncertainty based on plausibility measures. This approach is easily seen to generalize other approaches to modeling uncertainty, such as probability measures, belief functions, and possibility measures. We focus on one application of plausibility measures in this paper: default reasoning. In recent years, a number of different semantics for defaults have been proposed, such as preferential structures, *-semantics, possibilistic structures, and -rankings, that have been shown to be characterized by the same set of axioms, known as the KLM properties. While this was viewed as a surprise, we show here that it is almost inevitable. In the framework of plausibility measures, we can give a necessary condition for the KLM axioms to be sound, and an additional condition necessary and sufficient to ensure that the KLM axioms are complete. This additional condition is so weak that it is almost always met whenever the axioms are sound. In particular, it is easily seen to hold for all the proposals made in the literature. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #559804. 	[Title] On the Testability of Causal Models with Latent and Instrumental Variables [Abstract] Certain causal models involving unmeasured variables induce no independence constraints among the observed variables but imply, nevertheless, inequality constraints on the observed distribution. This paper derives a general formula for such inequality constraints as induced by instrumental variables, that is, exogenous variables that directly affect some variables but not all. With the help of this formula, it is possible to test whether a model involving instrumental variables may account for the data, or, conversely, whether a given vari able can be deemed instrumental. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1110209. 	[Title] Defining Relative Likelihood in Partially-Ordered Preferential Structures [Abstract] Starting with a likelihood or preference order on worlds, we extend it to a likelihood ordering on sets of worlds in a natural way, and examine the resulting logic. Lewis earlier considered such a notion of relative likelihood in the context of studying counterfactuals, but he assumed a total preference order on worlds. Complications arise when examining partial orders that are not present for total orders. There are subtleties involving the exact approach to lifting the order on worlds to an order on sets of worlds. In addition, the axiomatization of the logic of relative likelihood in the case of partial orders gives insight into the connection between relative likelihood and default reasoning. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #89416. 	[Title] Rational Belief Revision (Preliminary Report) [Abstract] Theories of rational belief revision recently proposed by Alchourron, Gardenfors, Makin-son, and Nebel illuminate many important issues but impose unnecessarily strong standards for correct revisions and make strong assumptions about what information is available to guide revisions. We reconstruct these theories according to an economic standard of rationality in which preferences are used to select among alternative possible revisions. By permitting multiple partial specifications of preferences in ways closely related to preference-based nonmonotonic logics, the reconstructed theory employs information closer to that available in practice and offers more flexible ways of selecting revisions. We formally compare this new conception of rational belief revision with the original theories, adapt results about universal default theories to prove that there is unlikely to be any universal method of rational belief revision, and examine formally how different limitations on rationality affect belief revision. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #73162. 	[Title] Causal diagrams for empirical research [Abstract] The primary aim of this paper is to show how graphical models can be used as a mathematical language for integrating statistical and subject-matter information. In particular, the paper develops a principled, nonparametric framework for causal inference, in which diagrams are queried to determine if the assumptions available are sufficient for identifying causal effects from nonexperimental data. If so the diagrams can be queried to produce mathematical expressions for causal effects in terms of observed distributions; otherwise, the diagrams can be queried to suggest additional observations or auxiliary experiments from which the desired inferences can be obtained. Key words: Causal inference, graph models, structural equations, treatment effect. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #74698. 	[Title] Abduction to Plausible Causes: An Event-based Model of Belief Update [Abstract] The Katsuno and Mendelzon (KM) theory of belief update has been proposed as a reasonable model for revising beliefs about a changing world. However, the semantics of update relies on information which is not readily available. We describe an alternative semantical view of update in which observations are incorporated into a belief set by: a) explaining the observation in terms of a set of plausible events that might have caused that observation; and b) predicting further consequences of those explanations. We also allow the possibility of conditional explanations. We show that this picture naturally induces an update operator conforming to the KM postulates under certain assumptions. However, we argue that these assumptions are not always reasonable, and they restrict our ability to integrate update with other forms of revision when reasoning about action. fl Some parts of this report appeared in preliminary form as An Event-Based Abductive Model of Update, Proc. of Tenth Canadian Conf. on in AI, Banff, Alta., (1994). Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #189774. 	[Title] Causal Inference from Indirect Experiments [Abstract] Indirect experiments are studies in which randomized control is replaced by randomized encouragement, that is, subjects are encouraged, rather than forced to receive treatment programs. The purpose of this paper is to bring to the attention of experimental researchers simple mathematical results that enable us to assess, from indirect experiments, the strength with which causal influences operate among variables of interest. The results reveal that despite the laxity of the encouraging instrument, indirect experimentation can yield significant and sometimes accurate information on the impact of a program on the population as a whole, as well as on the particular individuals who participated in the program. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #39890. 	[Title] A THEORY OF INFERRED CAUSATION perceive causal relationships in uncon trolled observations. 2. the task [Abstract] This paper concerns the empirical basis of causation, and addresses the following issues: We propose a minimal-model semantics of causation, and show that, contrary to common folklore, genuine causal influences can be distinguished from spurious covariations following standard norms of inductive reasoning. We also establish a sound characterization of the conditions under which such a distinction is possible. We provide an effective algorithm for inferred causation and show that, for a large class of data the algorithm can uncover the direction of causal influences as defined above. Finally, we ad dress the issue of non-temporal causation. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #189655. 	[Title] Axioms of Causal Relevance [Abstract] This paper develops axioms and formal semantics for statements of the form "X is causally irrelevant to Y in context Z," which we interpret to mean "Changing X will not affect Y if we hold Z constant." The axiomization of causal irrelevance is contrasted with the axiomization of informational irrelevance, as in "Learning X will not alter our belief in Y , once we know Z." Two versions of causal irrelevance are analyzed, probabilistic and deterministic. We show that, unless stability is assumed, the probabilistic definition yields a very loose structure, that is governed by just two trivial axioms. Under the stability assumption, probabilistic causal irrelevance is isomorphic to path interception in cyclic graphs. Under the deterministic definition, causal irrelevance complies with all of the axioms of path interception in cyclic graphs, with the exception of transitivity. We compare our formalism to that of [Lewis, 1973], and offer a graphical method of proving theorems about causal relevance. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1117920. 	[Title] Plausibility Measures: A User's Guide [Abstract] We examine a new approach to modeling uncertainty based on plausibility measures, where a plausibility measure just associates with an event its plausibility, an element is some partially ordered set. This approach is easily seen to generalize other approaches to modeling uncertainty, such as probability measures, belief functions, and possibility measures. The lack of structure in a plausibility measure makes it easy for us to add structure on an as needed basis, letting us examine what is required to ensure that a plausibility measure has certain properties of interest. This gives us insight into the essential features of the properties in question, while allowing us to prove general results that apply to many approaches to reasoning about uncertainty. Plausibility measures have already proved useful in analyzing default reasoning. In this paper, we examine their algebraic properties, analogues to the use of + and fi in probability theory. An understanding of such properties will be essential if plausibility measures are to be used in practice as a representation tool. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #87915. 	[Title] On the Complexity of Conditional Logics [Abstract] Conditional logics, introduced by Lewis and Stalnaker, have been utilized in artificial intelligence to capture a broad range of phenomena. In this paper we examine the complexity of several variants discussed in the literature. We show that, in general, deciding satisfiability is PSPACE-complete for formulas with arbitrary conditional nesting and NP-complete for formulas with bounded nesting of conditionals. However, we provide several exceptions to this rule. Of particular note are results showing that (a) when assuming uniformity (i.e., that all worlds agree on what worlds are possible), the decision problem becomes EXPTIME-complete even for formulas with bounded nesting, and (b) when assuming absoluteness (i.e., that all worlds agree on all conditional statements), the decision problem is NP-complete for for mulas with arbitrary nesting. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #1134320. 	[Title] UNIVERSAL FORMULAS FOR TREATMENT EFFECTS FROM NONCOMPLIANCE DATA [Abstract] This paper establishes formulas that can be used to bound the actual treatment effect in any experimental study in which treatment assignment is random but subject compliance is imperfect. These formulas provide the tightest bounds on the average treatment effect that can be inferred given the distribution of assignments, treatments, and responses. Our results reveal that even with high rates of noncompliance, experimental data can yield significant and sometimes accurate information on the effect of a treatment on the population. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #714879. 	[Title] The New Challenge: From a Century of Statistics to an Age of Causation [Abstract] Some of the main users of statistical methods - economists, social scientists, and epidemiologists are discovering that their fields rest not on statistical but on causal foundations. The blurring of these foundations over the years follows from the lack of mathematical notation capable of distinguishing causal from equational relationships. By providing formal and natural explication of such relations, graphical methods have the potential to revolutionize how statistics is used in knowledge-rich applications. Statisticians, in response, are beginning to realize that causality is not a metaphysical dead-end but a meaningful concept with clear mathematical underpinning. The paper surveys these developments and outlines future challenges. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #714748 has the title `CAUSATION, ACTION, AND COUNTERFACTUALS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #714748 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #714748 has the title `CAUSATION, ACTION, AND COUNTERFACTUALS  
` and the abstract `nan`.
Question: Which category should Paper #714748 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Probabilistic_Methods