BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Philip Dawid

Philip Dawid contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.STStatistics TheoryMethodologyArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2017arXiv

The Probability of Causation

Many legal cases require decisions about causality, responsibility or blame, and these may be based on statistical data. However, causal inferences from such data are beset by subtle conceptual and practical difficulties, and in general it is, at best, possible to identify the "probability of causation" as lying between certain empirically informed limits. These limits can be refined and improved if we can obtain additional information, from statistical or scientific data, relating to the internal workings of the causal processes. In this paper we review and extend recent work in this area, where additional information may be available on covariate and/or mediating variables.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Sufficient Covariate, Propensity Variable and Doubly Robust Estimation

Statistical causal inference from observational studies often requires adjustment for a possibly multi-dimensional variable, where dimension reduction is crucial. The propensity score, first introduced by Rosenbaum and Rubin, is a popular approach to such reduction. We address causal inference within Dawid's decision-theoretic framework, where it is essential to pay attention to sufficient covariates and their properties. We examine the role of a propensity variable in a normal linear model. We investigate both population-based and sample-based linear regressions, with adjustments for a multivariate covariate and for a propensity variable. In addition, we study the augmented inverse probability weighted estimator, involving a combination of a response model and a propensity model. In a linear regression with homoscedasticity, a propensity variable is proved to provide the same estimated causal effect as multivariate adjustment. An estimated propensity variable may, but need not, yield better precision than the true propensity variable. The augmented inverse probability weighted estimator is doubly robust and can improve precision if the propensity model is correctly specified.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

From Statistical Evidence to Evidence of Causality

While statisticians and quantitative social scientists typically study the "effects of causes" (EoC), Lawyers and the Courts are more concerned with understanding the "causes of effects" (CoE). EoC can be addressed using experimental design and statistical analysis, but it is less clear how to incorporate statistical or epidemiological evidence into CoE reasoning, as might be required for a case at Law. Some form of counterfactual reasoning, such as the "potential outcomes" approach championed by Rubin, appears unavoidable, but this typically yields "answers" that are sensitive to arbitrary and untestable assumptions. We must therefore recognise that a CoE question simply might not have a well-determined answer. It is nevertheless possible to use statistical data to set bounds within which any answer must lie. With less than perfect data these bounds will themselves be uncertain, leading to a compounding of different kinds of uncertainty. Still further care is required in the presence of possible confounding factors. In addition, even identifying the relevant "counterfactual contrast" may be a matter of Policy as much as of Science. Defining the question is as non-trivial a task as finding a route towards an answer. This paper develops some technical elaborations of these philosophical points, and illustrates them with an analysis of a case study in child protection. Keywords: benfluorex, causes of effects, counterfactual, child protection, effects of causes, Fre'chet bound, potential outcome, probability of causation

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Minimum scoring rule inference

Proper scoring rules are methods for encouraging honest assessment of probability distributions. Just like likelihood, a proper scoring rule can be applied to supply an unbiased estimating equation for any statistical model, and the theory of such equations can be applied to understand the properties of the associated estimator. In this paper we develop some basic scoring rule estimation theory, and explore robustness and interval estimation properties by means of theory and simulations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Direct and Indirect Effects of Sequential Treatments

In this paper we review the notion of direct causal effect as introduced by Pearl (2001). We show how it can be formulated without counterfactuals, using intervention indicators instead. This allows to consider the natural direct effect as a special case of sequential treatments discussed by Dawid and Didelez (2005) which immediately yields conditions for identifiability as well as a graphical way of checking identifiability. The results are contrasted with the criteria given by Pearl (2001) and Robins (2003).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Identifying Optimal Sequential Decisions

We consider conditions that allow us to find an optimal strategy for sequential decisions from a given data situation. For the case where all interventions are unconditional (atomic), identifiability has been discussed by Pearl & Robins (1995). We argue here that an optimal strategy must be conditional, i.e. take the information available at each decision point into account. We show that the identification of an optimal sequential decision strategy is more restrictive, in the sense that conditional interventions might not always be identified when atomic interventions are. We further demonstrate that a simple graphical criterion for the identifiability of an optimal strategy can be given.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access