Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Confusion about Appendix J #255

Open
adamrupe opened this issue Oct 29, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Confusion about Appendix J #255

adamrupe opened this issue Oct 29, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@adamrupe
Copy link
Collaborator

image

It is unclear why J.1 talks about interventions on $X^{\mathcal{R}}$; for example the last line has $q_i^{a|x} (a ; \mathrm{do}(x))$. Is this just a mistake / typo? Just below in J.2 puts the do operator on the full conditional $q_\star^{\mathcal{L}|\mathcal{R}}$ variable distribution. The conditional intervention $q_\star^{\mathcal{L}|\mathcal{R}}$ described in J.2 is in line with the rest of the paper, e.g., $q_\star^{a|x}$ as given on page 4. So it seems like the statements in J.1 are a mistake? For an unconditional intervention, $q^a_\star$, wouldn't $\mathcal{R}$ in (69) be empty? But then there would be an "intervention" on the empty set.

@djinnome
Copy link
Contributor

djinnome commented Oct 30, 2024

It doesn't completely solve the mystery of equation (69), but if I wanted to generate an augmentation variable such that its only dependencies were on its direct subunit ancestors, then $q_i^{\mathcal{L}|\mathcal{R}} (\mathcal{L} ; \mathrm{do}(\mathcal{R}))$ would be consistent with that goal, since $\mathrm{do}(\mathcal{R})$ cuts off any dependencies between $\mathcal{L}$ and all its indirect subunit ancestors.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants