The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions
Abstract
Abstract Information about the structure of a causal system can come in the form of observational data—random samples of the system's autonomous behavior—or interventional data—samples conditioned on the particular values of one or more variables that have been experimentally manipulated. Here we study people's ability to infer causal structure from both observation and intervention, and to choose informative interventions on the basis of observational data. In three causal inference tasks, participants were to some degree capable of distinguishing between competing causal hypotheses on the basis of purely observational data. Performance improved substantially when participants were allowed to observe the effects of interventions that they performed on the systems. We develop computational models of how people infer causal structure from data and how they plan intervention experiments, based on the representational framework of causal graphical models and the inferential principles of optimal Bayesian decision‐making and maximizing expected information gain. These analyses suggest that people can make rational causal inferences, subject to psychologically reasonable representational assumptions and computationally reasonable processing constraints.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Causation, Prediction, and Search
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1754.001.0001 · Cited by 4,521
Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 · Cited by 4,263
Dual space search during scientific reasoning
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1 · Cited by 1,058
Cited by
Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning
Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Kemp, C. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.009 · Cited by 880
Self-citationCausal Models: How People Think about the World and Its Alternatives
Sloman, S. (2005) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183115.001.0001 · Cited by 677
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533
Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2001) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816772.006 · Cited by 507
The future of fMRI connectivity
Smith, S. M. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.022 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Steyvers, M.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 453-489
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081625202
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 23.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00010-7
- The paper
- Steyvers, M. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00010-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.