Reasoning about actual causes of observed effects is fundamental to the study of rationality. This important problem has been studied since the time of Aristotle, with formal mathematical accounts emerging recently. We live in a world where change due to actions can be both discrete and continuous, that is, hybrid. Yet, despite extensive research on actual causation, only few recent studies looked into causation with continuous change. Building on recent progress, in this paper we propose two definitions of primary cause in a hybrid action-theoretic framework, namely the hybrid temporal situation calculus. One of these is foundational in nature while the other formalizes causation through contributions, which can then be verified from a counterfactual perspective using a modified ``but-for'' test. We prove that these two definitions are indeed equivalent. We then show that our definitions of causation have some intuitively justifiable properties.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Primary Cause in Hybrid Domains: Primitive Case
Over a series of seven papers, Andreas & Günther have introduced seven definitions of actual causation and have classified them as belonging to three different, competing, types of accounts: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. I show that their most recent - factual difference-making - definition instantiates all three types, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. I further compare their novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples, revealing that this undermines all seven of their accounts.
Fault trees are a widely used as effective risk models for complex systems, answering the question "what can go wrong?", especially through minimal cut set analysis. We study fault trees from the perspective of Halpern & Pearl's theory of actual causality. This allows us to use fault trees to answer the question "why has it gone wrong?", which is fundamental to failure diagnostics. We give a complete classification of each of the different notions of actual causality in terms of the fault tree's graph structure and logical structure, and show how minimal cut sets give rise to actual causes.
Georgiana Caltais, Milan Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Mariëlle Stoelinga
University of Twente, The Netherlands · Radboud University, The Netherlands
We provide a brief primer for the idea behind formalising hierarchical causality in the context of complex systems. Here actors are not simply agents. Actors instantiate causation classes. Agents implement local dynamics in given levels or organisation in a given system. Hierarchical causality then describes how actor-level roles constrain, select, and organise agent-level behaviour across levels. The system then necessarily requires three additional structures. First, causation classes to abstract a given form of causal influence that an actor instantiates. Second, aggregation operators to move across the levels. Third, discrete event-time maps are required because the system comprises events, and the relation between local event counts and any global clock must be specified. Our formulation here is purposefully simple and discrete.
Tim Gebbie
Department of Statistical Science, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa