The Causal Description Gap: Information-Theoretic Separations Across Pearl's Hierarchy

Causal-discovery algorithms return a directed graph, yet provide no principled means of distinguishing edge directions identified by the data from those assigned without an identifying assumption. Under the standard Markov and faithfulness conditions, the observational distribution identifies only a Markov equivalence class; orientations within that class are not determined by the joint distribution and cannot be recovered from additional samples alone, but require either a functional restriction or an intervention. We introduce a protocol for observational causal discovery on continuous data that attaches to each candidate edge a discrete impossibility certificate: a RESOLVED code records the identifiability theorem under which the direction was committed, while an IMPOSSIBLE code records the failure mode together with the specific question a domain expert must answer to resolve it. The bivariate cascade is extended with five gated identifiability tiers LSNM, IGCI, Stein, MDL, and PEIT that abstain when their precondition test rejects. Two oracle primitives, the meta-hub query and the node-children query, jointly establish an upper bound of $1+K$ expert interactions sufficient to recover any DAG, where $K$ denotes the number of non-leaf vertices. Under an ideal-oracle assumption, the bound is met exactly on the asia, sachs, child, and alarm benchmarks.

Probabilistic logic programming is a formalism of statistical relational artificial intelligence that supports causal queries, including interventions from outside the system. When the structure of a probabilistic logic program is learned from data, however, only probabilistic information is used, and a single probability distribution may be compatible with several causal orders. This leads to ambiguity in interventional reasoning, raising the question of when the causal order is uniquely determined by the distribution. Exploiting the relationship between acyclic probabilistic logic programs and Bayesian networks, we derive conditions under which the probabilistic information encoded in a program determines a unique causal order. We also incorporate constraints arising from relational structure by taking into account prescribed sets of causal symmetries induced by the underlying relational vocabulary. The result is a method for verifying when a learned probabilistic logic program supports well-defined intervention semantics.

Pearl famously argues that causal knowledge enables the prediction of intervention effects. By contrast, purely descriptive knowledge supports only conclusions drawn from observations. His theory of causality, however, is developed exclusively within Bayesian networks and causal models. Consequently, it is largely restricted to acyclic causal relationships, and transferring its ideas to other formalisms risks misinterpretation or inconsistency. This paper brings Pearl's approach to causality into probabilistic logic programming (PLP). To this end, such programs are aligned with philosophical foundations established in prior work that do not rely on temporal notions; that is, all relevant events are assumed to occur simultaneously. A formal causal semantics for these programs, together with a notion of intervention and an implementation, is proposed. It is shown that this semantics coincides with the P-log semantics for stratified ProbLog programs, while the two may differ in the non-stratified case and for other PLP formalisms.