Multinomial Simpson Paradox

this notebook shows a model for a multinomial Simpson paradox.

import pandas as pd

import pyagrum as gum
import pyagrum.lib.notebook as gnb

import pyagrum.causal as csl
import pyagrum.causal.notebook as cslnb

Building the models

## building a model including a Simpson's paradox
import scipy.stats as stats

bn = gum.fastBN("A[0,99]->B[0:40:200]<-C[0,5]->A")

bn.cpt("C").fillFromDistribution(stats.uniform, loc=0, scale=5)
bn.cpt("A").fillFromDistribution(stats.uniform, loc="C*12", scale=30)
bn.cpt("B").fillFromDistribution(stats.norm, loc="5+C*4-int(A/8)", scale=2);

#  generating a CSV, taking this model as the causal one.
gum.generateSample(bn, 400, "out/sample.csv", with_labels=False)
df = pd.read_csv("out/sample.csv")
df.plot.scatter(x="A", y="B", c="C", colormap="tab20");

cm = csl.CausalModel(bn)
_, p, _ = csl.causalImpact(cm, on="B", doing="A")

## building an Markov-equivalent model, generating a CSV, taking this model as the causal one.
bn2 = gum.BayesNet(bn)
bn2.reverseArc("C", "A")

gum.generateSample(bn2, 400, "out/sample2.csv", with_labels=False)
df2 = pd.read_csv("out/sample2.csv")

cm2 = csl.CausalModel(bn2)
_, p2, _ = csl.causalImpact(cm2, on="B", doing="A")

The observationnal model and its paradoxal structure (exactly the same with the second Markov-equivalent model)

gnb.flow.row(
  gnb.getBN(bn),
  df.plot.scatter(x="A", y="B"),
  df.plot.scatter(x="A", y="B", c="C", colormap="tab20"),
  captions=["the observationnal model", "the trend is increasing", "the trend is decreasing for any value for C !"],
)
gnb.flow.row(
  gnb.getBN(bn2),
  df2.plot.scatter(x="A", y="B"),
  df2.plot.scatter(x="A", y="B", c="C", colormap="tab20"),
  captions=["the Markov-equivalent model", "the trend is increasing", "the trend is decreasing for any value for C !"],
)

the observationnal model

the trend is increasing

the trend is decreasing for any value for C !

the Markov-equivalent model

the trend is increasing

the trend is decreasing for any value for C !

The paradox is revealed in the trend of the inferred means : the means are increasing with the value of $A$ except for any value of $C$ …

gum.config["notebook", "histogram_epsilon"] = 0.001
gum.config["notebook", "histogram_discretized_scale"] = 0.4

for a in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getPosterior(bn, target="B", evs={"A": a}), f"$P(B|A={a})$")
gnb.flow.new_line()
for a in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getPosterior(bn, target="B", evs={"A": a, "C": 0}), f"P(B | $A={a},C=0)$")
gnb.flow.new_line()
for a in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getPosterior(bn, target="B", evs={"A": a, "C": 2}), f"P(B | $A={a},C=2$)")
gnb.flow.new_line()
for a in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getPosterior(bn, target="B", evs={"A": a, "C": 4}), f"P(B | $A={a},C=4$)")
gnb.flow.display()

$P(B|A=10)$

$P(B|A=20)$

$P(B|A=30)$

P(B | $A=10,C=0)$

P(B | $A=20,C=0)$

P(B | $A=30,C=0)$

P(B | $A=10,C=2$)

P(B | $A=20,C=2$)

P(B | $A=30,C=2$)

P(B | $A=10,C=4$)

P(B | $A=20,C=4$)

P(B | $A=30,C=4$)

Now that the paradoxal structure is understood and the paradox is revealed, will we choose to observe $C$ (or not) before deciding to increase or decrease $A$ (with the goal to maximize $B$) ?

Of course, it depends on the causal structure of the problem !

gnb.flow.add_html(cslnb.getCausalModel(cm), "the first causal model")
gnb.flow.new_line()
for v in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getProba(p.extract({"A": v})), f"Doing $A={v}$")
gnb.flow.display()

the first causal model

Doing $A=10$

Doing $A=20$

Doing $A=30$

If $C$ is cause for $A$, observing $C$ really gives a new information about $B$.

gnb.flow.add_html(cslnb.getCausalModel(cm2), "the second causal model")
gnb.flow.new_line()
for v in [10, 20, 30]:
  gnb.flow.add_html(gnb.getProba(p2.extract({"A": v})), f"Doing $A={v}$")
gnb.flow.display()

the second causal model

Doing $A=10$

Doing $A=20$

Doing $A=30$

if $A$ is cause for $C$, observing $C$ may lead to misinterpretations about the causal role of $A$.