General Probabilities of Causation with Causal Knowledge

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.

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.

For many real-world systems, causal ground truth is difficult to obtain, making claims about causal effects hard to assess. We develop methods for evaluating collections of $\binom{n}{2}$ bivariate causal statements over a set of $n$ variables. In the setting of acyclic linear statements, any such collection can be extended to a unique multivariate causal model, but we argue that this induced model is implausible if it imposes substantial additional confounding to explain observed correlations. We introduce a compatibility score that quantifies this notion of plausibility, notably without relying on the faithfulness assumption. Additionally, we define an incompatibility score for purely graphical bivariate causal statements, based on global consistency constraints that are derived from acyclicity and faithfulness assumptions. We give theoretical and empirical evidence that both scores can successfully distinguish correct from incorrect causal statements in generic settings. Moreover, we demonstrate the practical applicability of our methods by analyzing causal claims made by large language models. Our work aims to provide a foundation for assessing the reliability of causal information derived from human experts or artificial intelligence in settings where alternative forms of validation are unavailable.