Register to reply 
Estabilishing a Statistically Based Causal Relationship 
Share this thread: 
#1
Dec512, 01:38 PM

P: 141

Hi all,
I was curious about how i would go about showing that samples of a variable separated in time may have a causal relationship. This actually may be more stochastic processes than pure statistics becuase I'm assuming random variables [itex] X, Y [/itex] have distributions [itex] f(x; k), g(y;k) [/itex] where k is a discrete index representing time samples. How would I prove that X>Y in the traditional sense of logic that "Given X, then Y", where the truth of this statement ranges from 1 to 1. Also just my thinking but "Given Y, then X" would not just be the negative of "Given X, then Y" I don't have anything in my stat book about this, but maybe it's just too basic? Not Sure. Thanks for the help. 


#2
Dec512, 04:48 PM

Mentor
P: 11,928

Where do you expect a causal relation? X>Y for some k?
You can find a correlation (if there is one), but that won't give you a causal relationship between both. X>Y where X comes before Y? You cannot rule out a common influence on both just based on that correlation, but at least you can rule out Y>X. 


#3
Dec512, 07:20 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 3,300

("Implication" is a topic of traditional logic. "Causation" is not. In fact, mathematics does have any standard definition for "causation". Discussions of causation are in the scope of Philosophy and Metaphysics.) 


#4
Dec512, 09:15 PM

P: 1

Estabilishing a Statistically Based Causal Relationship
Judea Pearl has done quite a bit of work on causality, especially through Bayesian networks. Googling his name, you will find quite a few generalaudience articles that might be interesting.
More mathematically, we may consider Bayesian Networks through graphical models and consider "interventions" in the model. In particular, see "Causal inference in statistics: An overview" by Pearl at http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r350.pdf Everyone always like to say "Correlation does not imply Causation", so it is nice to be able to think about the other direction! 


#5
Dec512, 11:18 PM

P: 570




#6
Dec612, 11:42 AM

P: 141

Stephen tashi: yes I suppose you are right. I may need to revise my range of outcome to 0 to 1. Mfb: I am talking about a metric in which you conclude some analog truth value to "x causes y" using both time series for all k. Edit* ImaLooser: Based on MathandPi's Post (after actually starting to read the material from Pearl), Causation does not imply correlation since it's actually possible that the causation is nonlinear (from my understanding since correlation would imply, if anything at all, a linear causation between [itex] X [/itex] and [itex] Y [/itex]). There is no reason for causation to be an inherently linear operation in general. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically?  Quantum Physics  521  
When does my corner shop become statistically relevent?  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  1  
What Does Causal Really Mean in CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) Quantum Gravity?  Beyond the Standard Model  1  
Statistically independent confusion  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  4  
Is this a valid way to calculate statistically probable value?  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  2 