Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Causally closed probability theories

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Published May 16, 2013• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Causal closedness and common cause closedness Assuming that Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle is valid, one is led to the question of whether our probabilistic theories predicting probabilistic correlations can be causally rich enough to also contain the causes of all the correlations they predict. The aim of this chapter is to formulate precisely and investigate this question. According to the Common Cause Principle, causal richness of a theory T would manifest in T 's being causally closed (complete) in the sense of being capable of explaining the correlations by containing a common cause of every correlation between causally independent events A, B . This feature of a theory is formulated in the next two definitions of causal closedness. In both definitions ( X, S, p )is a probability space and R ind is a two-place causal independence relation that is assumed to have been defined between elements of S . We treat the relation R ind as a variable in the problem of causal closedness; hence, at this point we leave open what properties R ind should have to be acceptable as a causal independence relation – later we will return to the issue of how to specify it. Definition 4.1 The probability space ( X, S, p ) is called causally closed with respect to R ind , if for every correlation Corr p ( A, B ) > 0 with A ϵ S and B ϵ S such that R ind ( A, B ) holds, there exists a common cause C of some type in S .

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139094344.005

Related papers

Causal completeness of probability theories — Results and open problems

Miklós Rédei, Balázs Gyenis

The aim of this paper is to give a review of the known results and open problems concerning causal completeness (closedness) of classical and non-classical (quantum) probability spaces. Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory means that the theory is causally rich enough to be able to explain causally all the correlations it predicts. It is natural to ask whether probabilistic theories are causally closed if one assumes that Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle holds: this principle states that if two events A and B are probabilistically correlated then either the correlation is due to a causal interaction between A and B, or, if A and B are causally independent, Rind(A,B), then there exists a third event C, a so-called common cause that explains the correlation by being related to A and B probabilistically in a specific way (see Definition 1). Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory is intended to express that the theory complies with the Common Cause Principle; accordingly, and more precisely, a probability theory is defined to be causally closed with respect to a causal independence relation

Oxford University Press eBooks•Mar 17, 2011•3 citations

A New Notion of Causal Closedness

Leszek Wroński, Michał Marczyk

In recent years part of the literature on probabilistic causality concerned notions stemming from Reichenbach’s idea of explaining correlations between not directly causally related events by referring to their common causes. A few related notions have been introduced, e.g. that of a “common cause system” (Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Int J Theor Phys 43(7/8):1819–1826, 2004 ) and “causal (N-)closedness” of probability spaces (Gyenis and Rédei in Found Phys 34(9):1284–1303, 2004 ; Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Found Phys 36(5):745–756, 2006 ). In this paper we introduce a new and natural notion similar to causal closedness and prove a number of theorems which can be seen as extensions of earlier results from the literature. Most notably we prove that a finite probability space is causally closed in our sense iff its measure is uniform. We also present a generalisation of this result to a class of non-classical probability spaces.

Erkenntnis•Mar 13, 2013•6 citations

Common cause extendability of probability spaces

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Common cause (in)completeness and extendability In principle, there are two ways to interpret Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle in general, each determined by how one views the status of the Principle with respect to the conditions of its validity: the Principle can be viewed as a falsifiable or a nonfalsifiable principle. In the falsificationist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle is a claim that can possibly and conclusively be shown not to hold for some empirically given events and their correlations; in the nonfalsificationaist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle cannot be falsified conclusively – whatever the actual circumstances. Is the Common Cause Principle falsifiable or nonfalsifiable? We shall argue that the Common Cause Principle, as formulated in Chapter 2, is not falsifiable conclusively, but the argument cannot be trivial, since the Common Cause Principle is certainly not trivially nonfalsifiable: it is not true that every classical probability space ( X, S, p ) is provably common cause complete in the sense that for any A, B ϵ S that are correlated in p there exists a C ϵ S that is a ( proper ) common cause of the correlation between A and B . There exists common cause incomplete probability spaces (for instance the probability space described in Figure 3.1 is common cause incomplete). This makes the following definition nonempty: Definition 3.1 The probability space ( X, S, p )is common cause incomplete if there exist events A, B ϵ S such that Corr p ( A, B ) > 0 but S does not contain a common cause of the correlation Corr p ( A, B ).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Introduction and overview

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

No correlation without causation. This is, in its most compact and general formulation, the essence of what has become Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle . More explicitly, the Common Cause Principle says that every correlation is either due to a direct causal effect linking the correlated entities, or is brought about by a third factor, a so-called Reichenbachian common cause that stands in a well-defined probabilistic relation to the correlated events, a relation that explains the correlation in the sense of entailing it. The Common Cause Principle is a nontrivial metaphysical claim about the causal structure of the World and entails that all correlations can (hence, should) be explained causally either by pointing at a causal connection between the correlated entities or by displaying a common cause of the correlation. Thus, the Common Cause Principle licenses one to infer causal connections from probabilistic relations; at the same time the principle does not address whether the causal connection holds between the correlated entities or between the common cause and the elements in the correlation. While the technically explicit notion of common cause of a probabilistic correlation within the framework of classical Kolmogorovian probability theory is due to Reichenbach (1956), the Common Cause Principle was articulated explicitly only later, especially in the works by W. Salmon (see the “Notes and bibliographic remarks” to Chapter 2). The chief aim of this book is to investigate the Common Cause Principle; in particular, the problem of to what extent the Common Cause Principle can explain probabilistic correlations.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Completion of the Causal Completability Problem

Michał Marczyk, Leszek Wroński

We give a few results concerning the notions of causal completability and causal closedness of classical probability spaces (Hofer-Szabó et al. [1999]; Gyenis and Rédei [2004]). We prove that (i) any classical probability space has a causally closed extension; (ii) any finite classical probability space with positive rational probabilities on the atoms of the event algebra can be extended to a causally up-to-three-closed finite space; and (iii) any classical probability space can be extended to a space in which all correlations between events that are logically independent modulo measure zero event have a countably infinite common-cause system. Collectively, these results show that it is surprisingly easy to find Reichenbach-style ‘explanations' for correlations, underlining doubts as to whether this approach can yield a philosophically relevant account of causality. 1 Introduction2 Basic Definitions and Results in the Literature3 Causal Completability the Easy Way: ‘Splitting the Atom’4 Causal Completability of Classical Probability Spaces: The General Case5 Infinite Statistical Common-Cause Systems for Arbitrary Pairs6 Conclusion Appendix A

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 23, 2014•17 citations

Exhaustive Classication of Finite Classical Probability Spaces with Regard to the Notion of Causal Up-to-n-closedness

Michał Marczyk, Leszek Wroński

Extending the ideas from (Hofer-Szabó and Rédei [2006]), we introduce the notion of causal up-to-n-closedness of probability spaces. A probability space is said to be causally up-to-n-closed with respect to a relation of independence R_ind iff for any pair of correlated events belonging to R_ind the space provides a common cause or a common cause system of size at most n. We prove that a finite classical probability space is causally up-to-3-closed w.r.t. the relation of logical independence iff its probability measure is constant on the set of atoms of non-0 probability. (The latter condition is a weakening of the notion of measure uniformity.) Other independence relations are also considered.

•Jun 1, 2009•0 citations
Causal closedness and common cause closedness Assuming that Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle is valid, one is led to the question of whether our probabilistic theories predicting probabilistic correlations can be causally rich enough to also contain the causes of all the correlations they predict. The aim of this chapter is to formulate precisely and investigate this question. According to the Common Cause Principle, causal richness of a theory T would manifest in T 's being causally closed (complete) in the sense of being capable of explaining the correlations by containing a common cause of every correlation between causally independent events A, B . This feature of a theory is formulated in the next two definitions of causal closedness. In both definitions ( X, S, p )is a probability space and R ind is a two-place causal independence relation that is assumed to have been defined between elements of S . We treat the relation R ind as a variable in the problem of causal closedness; hence, at this point we leave open what properties R ind should have to be acceptable as a causal independence relation – later we will return to the issue of how to specify it. Definition 4.1 The probability space ( X, S, p ) is called causally closed with respect to R ind , if for every correlation Corr p ( A, B ) > 0 with A ϵ S and B ϵ S such that R ind ( A, B ) holds, there exists a common cause C of some type in S .
The aim of this paper is to give a review of the known results and open problems concerning causal completeness (closedness) of classical and non-classical (quantum) probability spaces. Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory means that the theory is causally rich enough to be able to explain causally all the correlations it predicts. It is natural to ask whether probabilistic theories are causally closed if one assumes that Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle holds: this principle states that if two events A and B are probabilistically correlated then either the correlation is due to a causal interaction between A and B, or, if A and B are causally independent, Rind(A,B), then there exists a third event C, a so-called common cause that explains the correlation by being related to A and B probabilistically in a specific way (see Definition 1). Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory is intended to express that the theory complies with the Common Cause Principle; accordingly, and more precisely, a probability theory is defined to be causally closed with respect to a causal independence relation
In recent years part of the literature on probabilistic causality concerned notions stemming from Reichenbach’s idea of explaining correlations between not directly causally related events by referring to their common causes. A few related notions have been introduced, e.g. that of a “common cause system” (Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Int J Theor Phys 43(7/8):1819–1826, 2004 ) and “causal (N-)closedness” of probability spaces (Gyenis and Rédei in Found Phys 34(9):1284–1303, 2004 ; Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Found Phys 36(5):745–756, 2006 ). In this paper we introduce a new and natural notion similar to causal closedness and prove a number of theorems which can be seen as extensions of earlier results from the literature. Most notably we prove that a finite probability space is causally closed in our sense iff its measure is uniform. We also present a generalisation of this result to a class of non-classical probability spaces.
Common cause (in)completeness and extendability In principle, there are two ways to interpret Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle in general, each determined by how one views the status of the Principle with respect to the conditions of its validity: the Principle can be viewed as a falsifiable or a nonfalsifiable principle. In the falsificationist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle is a claim that can possibly and conclusively be shown not to hold for some empirically given events and their correlations; in the nonfalsificationaist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle cannot be falsified conclusively – whatever the actual circumstances. Is the Common Cause Principle falsifiable or nonfalsifiable? We shall argue that the Common Cause Principle, as formulated in Chapter 2, is not falsifiable conclusively, but the argument cannot be trivial, since the Common Cause Principle is certainly not trivially nonfalsifiable: it is not true that every classical probability space ( X, S, p ) is provably common cause complete in the sense that for any A, B ϵ S that are correlated in p there exists a C ϵ S that is a ( proper ) common cause of the correlation between A and B . There exists common cause incomplete probability spaces (for instance the probability space described in Figure 3.1 is common cause incomplete). This makes the following definition nonempty: Definition 3.1 The probability space ( X, S, p )is common cause incomplete if there exist events A, B ϵ S such that Corr p ( A, B ) > 0 but S does not contain a common cause of the correlation Corr p ( A, B ).
No correlation without causation. This is, in its most compact and general formulation, the essence of what has become Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle . More explicitly, the Common Cause Principle says that every correlation is either due to a direct causal effect linking the correlated entities, or is brought about by a third factor, a so-called Reichenbachian common cause that stands in a well-defined probabilistic relation to the correlated events, a relation that explains the correlation in the sense of entailing it. The Common Cause Principle is a nontrivial metaphysical claim about the causal structure of the World and entails that all correlations can (hence, should) be explained causally either by pointing at a causal connection between the correlated entities or by displaying a common cause of the correlation. Thus, the Common Cause Principle licenses one to infer causal connections from probabilistic relations; at the same time the principle does not address whether the causal connection holds between the correlated entities or between the common cause and the elements in the correlation. While the technically explicit notion of common cause of a probabilistic correlation within the framework of classical Kolmogorovian probability theory is due to Reichenbach (1956), the Common Cause Principle was articulated explicitly only later, especially in the works by W. Salmon (see the “Notes and bibliographic remarks” to Chapter 2). The chief aim of this book is to investigate the Common Cause Principle; in particular, the problem of to what extent the Common Cause Principle can explain probabilistic correlations.
We give a few results concerning the notions of causal completability and causal closedness of classical probability spaces (Hofer-Szabó et al. [1999]; Gyenis and Rédei [2004]). We prove that (i) any classical probability space has a causally closed extension; (ii) any finite classical probability space with positive rational probabilities on the atoms of the event algebra can be extended to a causally up-to-three-closed finite space; and (iii) any classical probability space can be extended to a space in which all correlations between events that are logically independent modulo measure zero event have a countably infinite common-cause system. Collectively, these results show that it is surprisingly easy to find Reichenbach-style ‘explanations' for correlations, underlining doubts as to whether this approach can yield a philosophically relevant account of causality. 1 Introduction2 Basic Definitions and Results in the Literature3 Causal Completability the Easy Way: ‘Splitting the Atom’4 Causal Completability of Classical Probability Spaces: The General Case5 Infinite Statistical Common-Cause Systems for Arbitrary Pairs6 Conclusion Appendix A
Extending the ideas from (Hofer-Szabó and Rédei [2006]), we introduce the notion of causal up-to-n-closedness of probability spaces. A probability space is said to be causally up-to-n-closed with respect to a relation of independence R_ind iff for any pair of correlated events belonging to R_ind the space provides a common cause or a common cause system of size at most n. We prove that a finite classical probability space is causally up-to-3-closed w.r.t. the relation of logical independence iff its probability measure is constant on the set of atoms of non-0 probability. (The latter condition is a weakening of the notion of measure uniformity.) Other independence relations are also considered.