Company Name (if applicable)

Project details

At the core of our research is the construction of causal networks, which provide a structured representation of the dependencies between variables. We will use Bayesian networks, structural causal models (SCMs), and Pearl’s Do-Calculus to formalize these relationships. The Bayesian network serves as the probabilistic framework for encoding causal relationships, where nodes represent random variables, and directed edges signify causal influences. This representation lends itself to efficient inference on the probability of various outcomes based on observed data. By inferring the causal structure from observational data, we will establish a causal graph that delineates how changes in one variable can effectuate changes in others. 

The integration of these causal networks with PLN will entail developing an inference control mechanism that uses the causal structure to prioritize pathways during reasoning tasks. We will design algorithms that operate on causal graphs to dynamically adjust the inference process based on causal information. This will include formulating causal intervention strategies that simulate interventions in the causal model to predict the resultant effects, thereby refining the PLN’s decision-making processes. The key here is to enable PLN to use causal information not merely as additional context but as a primary guiding principle for inference, improving the robustness of the conclusions drawn. 

Guiding PLN Inference

Integrating causal networks into PLNs improves inference control and provides a robust framework for reasoning under uncertainty. This section outlines a methodology for using causal structures to optimize PLN’s inference processes, focusing on developing algorithms that use causal information to guide decision-making in AI services, particularly in dynamic environments like bioinformatics and AI planning. 

A Bayesian network is structured as a directed acyclic graph where nodes represent random variables and directed edges indicate causal relationships. Each node is linked to a conditional probability distribution that describes how the variable behaves based on its parent nodes. Structural learning involves using algorithms like the PC or GES algorithms to identify the most probable causal graph from observational data. The process tests independent relationships between variables to construct the network structure. In parameter learning, techniques such as maximum likelihood estimation or Bayesian estimation are applied to derive the conditional probability distributions, which is important for accurately modeling real-world phenomena. 

Structural causal models (SCMs) extend Bayesian networks by incorporating potential outcomes for each variable. Each variable can be expressed in terms of its causal parents and an error term, which supports causal interventions. By simulating interventions, the causal graph can be modified to evaluate the effects of changes in variables, which permits robust predictions regarding how alterations influence outcomes. 

To guide PLN inference using causal networks, we propose a set of algorithms that prioritize causal pathways during reasoning tasks:

1. Causal Pathway Prioritization: This mechanism evaluates the strength of causal relationships in the network, determining the relevance of each path to the inference task. 

2. Dynamics Inference Adjustment: This algorithm adaptively modifies inference strategies based on new evidence. For instance, if evidence is provided for a variable, the inference pathways are recalibrated to emphasize nodes directly affected by that variable. 

3. Causal Intervention Simulation: The system can simulate hypothetical interventions within the PLN framework, predicting the effects of changes and informing decision-making processes. 

Causality

Predictive implication—a framework that supports discussions of temporal correlation—is useful for addressing pragmatic aspects of causation.  To illustrate, consider the classic example: a rooster crowing before dawn. Even though the rooster crows consistently before the sun rises, it would be an error to conclude causality in this sequence. The distinction lies in understanding that a third variable could be influencing both events, or, as in this case, other contextual knowledge dismisses the idea that the rooster causes the sun to rise. To avoid such erroneous conclusions, a reasoning system must be able to recognize and test for alternative explanations. In this case, both “rooster crows” and “sun rises” may hold a strong temporal and probabilistic link. 

This differentiation is formalized through these predictive implication relationships. Here, extensional relationships arise from direct observation (i.e. the observation that roosters crow before sunrise) whereas intensional relationships draw on the background knowledge that provides context to these observations. For instance, while extensional evidence suggests that “rooster crows imply sun rises” with high confidence, the intensional knowledge that roosters lack the physical capability to influence sunrise reduces the confidence in this causal implication. Thus, a reasoning system could assign low overall confidence to a causal inference between these events.

As shown in Goertzel et. al, one could model a network as:

• PredictiveImplication <0.00, 0.99> between “small physical force” and “movement of a large object”

• PredictiveImplication <0.99, 0.99> between “rooster crows” and “small physical force”

• PredictiveImplication <0.99, 0.99> between “sun rises” and “movement of a large object”

• PredictiveImplication <0.00, 0.99> between “rooster crows” and “sun rises

In clearer terms, here’s what the evidence suggests:

• There’s virtually no chance (0.00) that a small force, like a rooster’s crow, could move something as massive as the sun, though we’re very confident (0.99) in this basic observation.

• We can be highly confident (0.99) that a rooster crowing involves only a small physical force, aligning well with our understanding of its abilities.

• We’re similarly confident (0.99) that the sunrise involves the movement of a large object, consistent with our knowledge of planetary motions.

• So, while we often observe roosters crowing before sunrise, there’s almost no likelihood (0.00) that the crowing causes the sunrise. Instead, our background knowledge keeps us from mistaking this correlation for actual causation.

AI Service

Our research culminates in the Causal Inference Engine (CIE), which is an AI service designed to improve decision-making processes by integrating causal mechanisms into PLNs. This service uses Bayesian causal networks to differentiate between causation and correlation, providing robust predictive capabilities in complex environments. 

Central to the CIE is the construction of causal networks represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where nodes denote random variables and directed edges encapsulate causal relationships. This framework supports the encoding of intricate dependencies among variables, allowing for efficient probabilistic inference. The engine employs a structural learning algorithm to derive the most probable causal graph from observational data. 

The integration of Structural Causal Models (SCMs) enriches the CIE’s capabilities by enabling comprehensive analysis of potential outcomes. In this framework, each variable is articulated in terms of its causal parents alongside a stochastic error term, allowing for the evaluation of counterfactual scenarios. 

To optimize inference control, the causal pathway prioritization algorithm assesses the strength and relevance of causal relationships. Additionally, the dynamics inference adjustment module adaptively recalibrates inference strategies in real-time based on incoming evidence. Moreover, the CIE supports causal intervention simulations, allowing users to conduct hypothetical interventions within the causal framework to evaluate potential outcomes and inform strategic decisions.

Open Source Licensing