0

I am learning the book "Causality" by Judea Pearl. In Chapter 1, page 18, the d-separation examples, there is a thing I do not understand. Consider this graph (a) on Page 18:

enter image description here

It says that $X$ and $Y$ are d-separated given $Z = \{Z_2\}$. However, I check all criteria of d-separation and I cannot find any criterion that satisfies it, as follows:

There is no chain $X => ... => Y$ and no fork $X <= ... <= Z_2 => ... => Y$ in the graph, thus the first criterion is eliminated. Thus, we have the collider left.

Consider the collider $X => Z_1 <==> Z_3 <= Y$, the second criterion says that "the path contains a collider $i => m <= j$ such that $m$ is not in $Z$ and no descendant of $m$ is in $Z$". The collider we consider has $Z_2$ as a descendant of $Z_3$ through the path $Z_3 => Z_2$, thus this path is not blocked by $Z_2$.

Moreover, consider the path $X => Z_1 <= Z_2 <= Z_3 <= Y$, this path is also not blocked because $Z_2$ is a collision node.

What details am I missing here?

Richard Hardy
  • 54,375
  • 10
  • 95
  • 219
Long Luu
  • 125
  • 5

2 Answers2

1

In (a), $X$ and $Y$ are unconditionally d-separated because of the unconditioned-upon collider $Z_1$, which blocks all paths from $X$ to $Y$. conditioning on $Z_2$ does not change this fact, and so $X$ and $Y$ remain d-separated after conditioning on $Z_2$.

Noah
  • 20,638
  • 2
  • 20
  • 58
  • Thanks for your answer, but could you elaborate more for me? It seems like I have not understood very well: the path $X => Z_1 <= Z_2 <= Z_3 <= Y$ could be my mistake: $Z_3$ is not a collision node, thus this path is still blocked by $Z_1$, but what about $X => Z_1 <==> Z_3 <= Y$? If the arrow points to $Z_1$ through $Z_3$, this path is blocked, but if it is vice versa: $X => Z_1 => Z_3 <= Y$, then $Z_2$ which is a descendant of $Z_3$, is in $Z$. – Long Luu Dec 03 '21 at 02:28
  • 1
    A double-headed arrow doesn't mean its nodes point at each other; it means there is a hidden third variable pointing at both of them. $Z_1 <==> Z_3$ is the same as $Z_1 <== U ==> Z_3$. No matter what, no arrows emanate from $Z_1$. – Noah Dec 03 '21 at 14:39
1

Your answer lies exactly on the next paragraph, on the same page of the book.

enter image description here

In the graph (a), X is d-separated from Y with an empty separation set or even with Z2 on it. Carlos Cinelli and colleagues have published a very interesting paper regarding what variables to control for. You can read it clicking here. Sometimes, you don't need to adjust for any variable to obtain d-separation, however, by doing so you can get better precision.

mribeirodantas
  • 796
  • 3
  • 17
  • 1
    Thanks for your point to that paper! Yeah I did read that paragraph, but it was just because I misunderstood the definition of d-separated so I didn't understand why it was separated given Z2. – Long Luu Dec 11 '21 at 03:16
  • You're welcome, @AerysS. This has already happened to me too. Sometimes I give a day or two and come back to read the text again and things are so much clearer haha – mribeirodantas Dec 11 '21 at 10:33