5 ms·
Reminds me of Granger causality, which had a lot of hype at the time, but not a lot of staying power. (I only read the main article, which was v. high level -
by navaed01 2y ago
Reminds me of Granger causality, which had a lot of hype at the time, but not a lot of staying power. (I only read the main article, which was v. high level - not the scientific paper )
- JackeJR 2y agoGranger's causality is a very restrictive and incomplete view of causality. Pearl's counterfactual system with do calculus is a more general way to think about causality. This SURD appears to be a souped up version of Granger.
- dccsillag 2y agoAnd the potential outcomes framework (Neyman-Rubin) is even more general :) Either way, Holland's 'Statistics and Causal Inference' paper (1986) is a nice read on the different frameworks for causality, especially in regards to Granger (&friends) versus do-calculus/Neyman-Rubin.
- throwaway81523 2y ago> Holland's 'Statistics and Causal Inference' paper (1986) In case anyone else wants to take a look: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2289064 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2289064 https://doi.org/10.2307/2289064 https://doi.org/10.2307/2289064
- Xcelerate 2y agoI think convergent cross mapping came out after Granger causality. Did that ever go anywhere either?
- phyalow 2y agoPage 2 speaks about the relationship and precedent of GC... Honestly worth a read, this is definitely one of most interesting papers for me in the last few years.
- navaed01 2y agoI’ll check it out - so you think this had some noteworthy real world applications?