The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning

An active area of research in the fields of machine learning and statistics is the development of causal discovery algorithms, the purpose of which is to infer the causal relations that hold among a set of variables from the correlations that these exhibit. We apply some of these algorithms to the correlations that arise for entangled quantum systems. We show that they cannot distinguish correlations that satisfy Bell inequalities from correlations that violate Bell inequalities, and consequently that they cannot do justice to the challenges of explaining certain quantum correlations causally. Nonetheless, by adapting the conceptual tools of causal inference, we can show that any attempt to provide a causal explanation of nonsignalling correlations that violate a Bell inequality must contradict a core principle of these algorithms, namely, that an observed statistical independence between variables should not be explained by fine-tuning of the causal parameters. In particular, we demonstrate the need for such fine-tuning for most of the causal mechanisms that have been proposed to underlie Bell correlations, including superluminal causal influences, superdeterminism (that is, a denial of freedom of choice of settings), and retrocausal influences which do not introduce causal cycles.Comment: 29 pages, 28 figs. New in v2: a section presenting in detail our characterization of Bell's theorem as a contradiction arising from (i) the framework of causal models, (ii) the principle of no fine-tuning, and (iii) certain operational features of quantum theory; a section explaining why a denial of hidden variables affords even fewer opportunities for causal explanations of quantum correlation

We Are Not Your Real Parents: Telling Causal from Confounded using MDL

Given data over variables $(X_1,...,X_m, Y)$ we consider the problem of finding out whether $X$ jointly causes $Y$ or whether they are all confounded by an unobserved latent variable $Z$. To do so, we take an information-theoretic approach based on Kolmogorov complexity. In a nutshell, we follow the postulate that first encoding the true cause, and then the effects given that cause, results in a shorter description than any other encoding of the observed variables. The ideal score is not computable, and hence we have to approximate it. We propose to do so using the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle. We compare the MDL scores under the models where $X$ causes $Y$ and where there exists a latent variables $Z$ confounding both $X$ and $Y$ and show our scores are consistent. To find potential confounders we propose using latent factor modeling, in particular, probabilistic PCA (PPCA). Empirical evaluation on both synthetic and real-world data shows that our method, CoCa, performs very well -- even when the true generating process of the data is far from the assumptions made by the models we use. Moreover, it is robust as its accuracy goes hand in hand with its confidence