Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 52 references

The causal relation between off-street parking and electric vehicle adoption in Scotland

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Access to private off-street parking raises the probability of electric vehicle ownership from 3.3% to 5.6%.

desk verdict The paper supplies specific numbers on parking's role in Scottish EV uptake but the causal separation from income rests on an unverified claim of full confounding control. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.09271 v1 submitted 2026-04-10 cs.LG

Bernardino D'Amico , Achille Fonzone , Emma Hart This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords electricvehicleadoptionoff-streetparkingcausalinferencehomechargingincomebarriersselectionbiasScotlandhouseholds
checked against reality_from_one_distinctionCost.FunctionalEquation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper uses a probabilistic causal model on a nationally representative set of Scottish households to test whether off-street parking truly enables more electric vehicle purchases or simply tracks existing economic advantages. It shows that parking access functions as a conversion catalyst, lifting ownership odds by 2.3 percentage points, yet this boost applies mainly to households already able to afford the vehicles. Income emerges as the larger constraint, cutting non-participation rates by 23.1 points when comparing income groups. Conventional observational approaches overstate parking's standalone role because richer households are more likely to have both parking and the funds for an EV. The work therefore recommends separate policy tracks for affordability and for home-charging access.

What carries the argument

Probabilistic causal framework that neutralizes confounding socio-economic factors to estimate the isolated effect of off-street parking access on EV ownership.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison of EV purchase rates in households that gain or lose off-street parking while income and other measured traits stay fixed would show whether the 2.3-point lift persists or disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Private off-street parking functions as a conversion catalyst: enabling access to home-charging increases the probability of EV ownership from 3.3% to 5.6% (a 70% relative, 2.3 percentage point absolute increase). However, this effect primarily accelerates households already economically positioned to purchase an EV rather than recruiting new entrants. By contrast, household income operates as the fundamental affordability ceiling. A causal contrast between lower- and higher-income strata shows a reduction in market non-participation by 23.1 percentage points. The analysis demonstrates that standard observational models overstate the isolated effect of off-street parking infrastructure due 5

Load-bearing premise

The causal model successfully removes all relevant confounding influences and the household survey data contain no selection bias or measurement error that would alter the estimated effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Financial instruments that lower the affordability ceiling can recruit new entrants into the EV market beyond what parking access alone achieves.
  • Home-charging infrastructure policies should target the latent-intent cohort in high-density urban settings where off-street parking is scarce.
  • Dual-track strategies are required: affordability support for non-participants paired with charging access for those ready to buy.
  • Observational studies of infrastructure effects on adoption must apply causal adjustment to avoid overstating benefits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same causal separation of infrastructure access from income could be applied to public charging networks to test substitution effects.
  • Longitudinal data tracking households before and after parking changes would confirm whether the conversion catalyst effect holds over time.
  • The identified selection bias implies that correlational estimates in related mobility or energy-adoption domains may also require causal re-examination.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a probabilistic causal framework to a nationally representative Scottish household dataset to estimate the causal effect of off-street parking access on electric vehicle (EV) ownership. It reports that private parking raises EV ownership probability from 3.3% to 5.6% (2.3 pp absolute increase), primarily accelerating adoption among higher-income households already positioned to buy, while household income acts as the fundamental barrier (23.1 pp reduction in non-participation for higher-income strata). The analysis claims standard observational models overstate the parking effect due to selection bias from socio-economic confounders.

Significance. If the causal identification holds, the results support a dual-track EV policy: financial instruments to address affordability for non-participants and targeted home-charging infrastructure for the latent-intent cohort in dense urban areas. The explicit contrast with observational models and use of causal methods to isolate infrastructure from disparity effects represent a methodological strength for policy-relevant inference in sustainable mobility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (probabilistic causal framework)] The headline causal contrast (3.3% to 5.6%) and the claim that the effect mainly accelerates affluent households rest on the probabilistic framework having blocked all back-door paths from unmeasured confounders (income, education, urban density, preferences). The manuscript must specify the exact conditioning set, causal graph, and identification strategy (e.g., which variables are observed and conditioned on) so that readers can verify completeness; without this, the reported effect sizes and the superiority claim over observational models cannot be assessed.
  2. [Results (income strata and effect sizes)] Table or figure reporting the income-stratified contrasts and the 23.1 pp reduction in market non-participation should include standard errors, confidence intervals, and robustness checks to alternative specifications or sensitivity to unmeasured confounding; the current presentation leaves the precision and stability of these policy-relevant quantities unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly label the 3.3%/5.6% figures as model-based counterfactual probabilities rather than raw sample proportions to avoid misinterpretation.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the causal quantities (e.g., potential outcomes or intervention probabilities) should be introduced consistently in the methods section and reused in results to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below, along with our plans for revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (probabilistic causal framework)] The headline causal contrast (3.3% to 5.6%) and the claim that the effect mainly accelerates affluent households rest on the probabilistic framework having blocked all back-door paths from unmeasured confounders (income, education, urban density, preferences). The manuscript must specify the exact conditioning set, causal graph, and identification strategy (e.g., which variables are observed and conditioned on) so that readers can verify completeness; without this, the reported effect sizes and the superiority claim over observational models cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit description of the causal identification strategy is necessary to allow readers to evaluate the assumptions. In the revised version, we will add a new subsection in the Methods detailing the causal graph (including a figure of the DAG), the full list of observed variables used for conditioning (such as household income, education level, urban/rural density, household size, and other socio-demographic factors available in the Scottish Household Survey dataset), and the specific identification assumptions (e.g., no unmeasured confounding after conditioning on these variables, and how the probabilistic framework implements the do-operator or equivalent). This will directly address the completeness of blocking back-door paths and substantiate the comparison to observational models. Note that income is an observed variable that is explicitly conditioned on and used for stratification. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (income strata and effect sizes)] Table or figure reporting the income-stratified contrasts and the 23.1 pp reduction in market non-participation should include standard errors, confidence intervals, and robustness checks to alternative specifications or sensitivity to unmeasured confounding; the current presentation leaves the precision and stability of these policy-relevant quantities unclear.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater transparency regarding the statistical precision of our estimates. In the revision, we will update the relevant table and/or figure to include standard errors and 95% confidence intervals for the income-stratified contrasts and the 23.1 percentage point reduction. Furthermore, we will add a robustness section that includes checks against alternative specifications (e.g., different model parameterizations within the probabilistic framework) and sensitivity analyses for potential unmeasured confounding, such as bounding the effect under varying degrees of unobserved bias. These additions will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the stability and reliability of the policy-relevant quantities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: causal estimates derived from data fitting, not by construction

full rationale

The paper applies a probabilistic causal framework to a nationally representative Scottish household dataset to estimate intervention effects. The headline results (EV ownership rising from 3.3% to 5.6% with off-street parking access, and income as the primary gatekeeper) are outputs of model-based estimation that conditions on observed confounders. No equations or steps reduce these quantities to fitted parameters by definition, nor do they rely on self-citations whose content is itself unverified or tautological. The contrast with 'standard observational models' is presented as an empirical finding rather than a definitional necessity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data and standard causal identification assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard causal inference assumptions and parameters estimated from the Scottish household dataset. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • causal effect of parking
    The 2.3 percentage point increase is estimated from the probabilistic model applied to the data.
  • income strata effects
    The 23.1 percentage point reduction in non-participation is fitted from contrasts in the dataset.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption No unmeasured confounding between parking, income, and EV adoption
    Invoked by the probabilistic causal framework to isolate the parking effect.
  • domain assumption Positivity and consistency assumptions hold for the interventions considered
    Required for valid causal contrasts in the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The causal relation between off-street parking and electric vehicle adoption in Scotland." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.09271

@misc{pith2026260409271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The causal relation between off-street parking and electric vehicle adoption in Scotland},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.09271}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.09271}
}
read the original abstract

The transition to electric mobility hinges on maximising aggregate adoption while also facilitating equitable access. This study examines whether the 'charging divide' between households with and without off-street parking reflects a genuine infrastructure constraint or a by-product of socio-economic disparity. Moving beyond conventional predictive models, we apply a probabilistic causal framework to a nationally representative dataset of Scottish households, enabling estimation of policy interventions while explicitly neutralising the confounding effect of other causal factors. The results reveal a structural hierarchy in the EV adoption process. Private off-street parking functions as a conversion catalyst: enabling access to home-charging increases the probability of EV ownership from 3.3% to 5.6% (a 70% relative, 2.3 percentage point absolute increase). However, this effect primarily accelerates households already economically positioned to purchase an EV rather than recruiting new entrants. By contrast, household income operates as the fundamental affordability ceiling. A causal contrast between lower- and higher-income strata, shows a reduction in market non-participation by 23.1 percentage points, identifying financial capacity as the principal gatekeeper to entering the EV transition funnel. Crucially, the analysis demonstrates that standard observational models overstate the isolated effect of off-street parking infrastructure. The apparent effect emerges from selection bias: higher-income households are disproportionately likely to possess both private parking and the means to purchase EVs. These findings support a dual-track policy strategy: lowering the affordability ceiling for non-participants through financial instruments, while addressing EV home-charging access for the 'latent intent' cohort in high-density urban contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09271 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Causal graphical structure of the parking provision and EV ownership toy example. The presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Causal discovery workflow. (a) Initial, fully connected skeleton. (b) Maximal Ancestral Graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Final DAG (G) representing the causal mechanisms of EV ownership status and intentions (Y ). The model integrates automated causal discovery results with post-hoc manual refinements to account for latent confounding (Ui). Directed solid edges indicate causal effects, dashed edges denote unobserved common causes. The DAG structure provides the formal basis for identifying sufficient adjustment sets Z required to esti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mutilated graphs used for the identification of causal effects via the back-door criterion. (a) Sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distributions of EV adoption status and intentions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Total causal effect of household income ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    we apply a probabilistic causal framework... enabling estimation of policy interventions while explicitly neutralising the confounding effect of other causal factors... back-door criterion... P(Y|do(V7)) = sum P(Y|V7,V8,V9)P(V8,V9)

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The results reveal a structural hierarchy... parking... conversion catalyst... income... affordability ceiling

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    rep., Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK, accessed: 2026-03-10 (2021)

    Transport Scotland, National Transport Strategy (NTS2) Second Annual Delivery Plan 2021-2022, Tech. rep., Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK, accessed: 2026-03-10 (2021). URLhttps://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/national-trans port-strategy-nts2-second-delivery-plan-2022-2023/

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Hutton, I

    G. Hutton, I. Stewart, M. Benson, D. Webb, I. Jozepa, Electric vehicles and infras- tructure, Research Briefing CBP-7480, House of Commons Library, London, UK (June 2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Scottish Government, Scotland’s Climate Change Plan 2026–2040, Draft strategy and consultation, The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland, iSBN: 978-1-80643-352-0 (November 2025)

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    A. M. Varghese, N. Menon, A. Ermagun, Equitable distribution of electric vehicle charg- ing infrastructure: A systematic review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 206 (2024) 114825

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    M. Kuby, A. Cordova-Cruzatty, N. Parker, D. King, EV charging for multifamily hous- ing: Review of evidence, methods, barriers, and opportunities, Renewable and Sustain- able Energy Reviews 210 (2025) 115253

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    rep., survey report, published October 2025 (2025)

    Electric Vehicle Association England (EVA England), Steer the Conversation: EVA England Survey Report 2025, Tech. rep., survey report, published October 2025 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Zhang, N

    R. Zhang, N. Horesh, E. Kontou, Y. Zhou, Electric vehicle community charging hubs in multi-unit dwellings: Scheduling and techno-economic assessment, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 120 (2023) 103776. 25

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Farkas, H.-S

    Z. Farkas, H.-S. Shin, A. Nickkar, Environmental attributes of electric vehicle own- ership and commuting behavior in Maryland: public policy and equity considerations, Mid-Atlantic Transportation Sustainability University Transportation Center. Retrieved April 20 (2018) 2019

    work page 2018

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Haustein, A

    S. Haustein, A. F. Jensen, Factors of electric vehicle adoption: A comparison of conven- tional and electric car users based on an extended theory of planned behavior, Interna- tional Journal of Sustainable Transportation 12 (7) (2018) 484–496

    2018

  2. [10]

    C.-f. Chen, G. Z. de Rubens, L. Noel, J. Kester, B. K. Sovacool, Assessing the socio- demographic, technical, economic and behavioral factors of nordic electric vehicle adop- tion and the influence of vehicle-to-grid preferences, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 121 (2...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Trommer, J

    S. Trommer, J. Jarass, V. Kolarova, Early adopters of electric vehicles in germany un- veiled, in: Proceedings of the 28th international electric vehicle symposium and exhibi- tion, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Brückmann, F

    G. Brückmann, F. Willibald, V. Blanco, Battery electric vehicle adoption in regions without strong policies, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 90 (2021) 102615

    2021

  5. [13]

    Zhang, D

    L. Zhang, D. van Lierop, D. Ettema, Electrifying: What factors drive the transition toward electric vehicle adoption in the netherlands?, Transport Policy 162 (2025) 242– 259

    2025

  6. [14]

    A. H. Halse, K. E. Hauge, E. T. Isaksen, B. G. Johansen, O. Raaum, Local incentives and electric vehicle adoption, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 12 (1) (2025) 145–180

    2025

  7. [15]

    S. C. Mukherjee, L. Ryan, Factors influencing early battery electric vehicle adoption in ireland, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109504

    2020

  8. [16]

    Hajhashemi, P

    E. Hajhashemi, P. Sauri Lavieri, N. Nassir, Modelling interest in co-adoption of electric vehicles and solar photovoltaics in Australia to identify tailored policy needs, Scientific Reports 14 (1) (2024) 9422

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. Jenn, J. H. Lee, S. Hardman, G. Tal, An in-depth examination of electric vehicle incentives: Consumer heterogeneity and changing response over time, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 132 (2020) 97–109

    2020

  10. [18]

    Nazari, M

    F. Nazari, M. Noruzoliaee, A. Mohammadian, Electric vehicle adoption behavior and vehicle transaction decision: estimating an integrated choice model with latent variables on a retrospective vehicle survey, Transportation Research Record 2678 (4) (2024) 378– 397

    2024

  11. [19]

    N. Salari, Electric vehicles adoption behaviour: Synthesising the technology readiness in- dex with environmentalism values and instrumental attributes, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 164 (2022) 60–81. 26

    2022

  12. [20]

    R. Song, P. Haggar, D. Xenias, D. Potoglou, Exploring the role of technophilia on electric vehicle use: a structural equation modelling approach, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 115 (2025) 103328

    2025

  13. [21]

    N. Moradloo, Charging into the future: Unraveling the factors shaping electric vehi- cle adoption and addressing heterogeneity, SAE International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Energy, Environment, & Policy 6 (1) (2024) 51–63

    2024

  14. [22]

    A.Ermagun, J.Tian, Chargingintoinequality: Anationalstudyofsocial, economic, and environment correlates of electric vehicle charging stations, Energy Research & Social Science 115 (2024) 103622

    2024

  15. [23]

    Binns, EVA England launches UK-wide driver survey on EVs, ElectricDrives, ac- cessed: February 23, 2026 (August 2025)

    T. Binns, EVA England launches UK-wide driver survey on EVs, ElectricDrives, ac- cessed: February 23, 2026 (August 2025)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Pearl, Does obesity shorten life? or is it the soda? on non-manipulable causes, Journal of Causal Inference 6 (2) (2018) 20182001

    J. Pearl, Does obesity shorten life? or is it the soda? on non-manipulable causes, Journal of Causal Inference 6 (2) (2018) 20182001

    2018

  17. [25]

    Accessed: 2026-02-24 (2024)

    Energy Saving Trust, Domestic Infrastructure Grant: Cross-pavement Charging Solu- tion, funded by Transport Scotland. Accessed: 2026-02-24 (2024)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Browne, Cross-pavement EV charging pilot to inform national guidance, accessed: 2026-02-24 (Aug

    D. Browne, Cross-pavement EV charging pilot to inform national guidance, accessed: 2026-02-24 (Aug. 2025)

    2026

  19. [27]

    rep., Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland (May 2022)

    Scottish Government, Scottish Government Review of Permitted Development Rights - Phase 2 Consultation: Analysis Report, Tech. rep., Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland (May 2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    D’Amico, F

    B. D’Amico, F. Pomponi, J. H. Arehart, L. Khaddour, Who cuts emissions, who turns up the heat? causal machine learning estimates of energy efficiency interventions, Energy and Buildings (2025) 116613doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025 .116613

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    B. D’Amico, Causal ML for fair energy policy interventions: Estimating impact hetero- geneity of insulation programs via do-calculus, in: Advances in Computational Intelli- gence Systems, Vol. 1468, Springer, 2026.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3-032-07938-1_35

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    R. S. Chauhan, C. Riis, S. Adhikari, S. Derrible, E. Zheleva, C. F. Choudhury, F. C. Pereira, Determining causality in travel mode choice, Travel behaviour and society 36 (2024) 100789

    2024

  23. [31]

    Pearl, Causality – Models Reasoning and Inference, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2009.doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051180 3161

    J. Pearl, Causality – Models Reasoning and Inference, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2009.doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051180 3161

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Suppes, A probabilistic theory of causality, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (4) (1973)

    P. Suppes, A probabilistic theory of causality, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (4) (1973). 27

    1973

  25. [33]

    P. W. Tennant, E. J. Murray, K. F. Arnold, L. Berrie, M. P. Fox, S. C. Gadd, W. J. Harrison, C. Keeble, L. R. Ranker, J. Textor, et al., Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs)toidentifyconfoundersinappliedhealthresearch: reviewandrecommendations, International journal of epidem...

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Koller, N

    D. Koller, N. Friedman, Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques, MIT press, Cambridge, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    URLhttps://elicit.com

    Elicit: The AI research assistant, accessed: 2026-02-27 (2023). URLhttps://elicit.com

    2026

  28. [36]

    Scottish Government, Ipsos MORI, Scottish Household Survey, 2022, Data collection, UK Data Service, SN: 9294 (2024).doi:http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-9 294-1

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Scottish Government, Scottish House Condition Survey, 2022, Data collection, UK Data Service, SN: 9429 (2025).doi:http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-9429-1

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Department for Transport, Electric vehicle charging device grant scheme statistics: Jan- uary 2023, GOV.UK, accessed: 2026-01-22 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Department for Transport, Electric vehicle public charging infrastructure statistics: Oc- tober 2025, GOV.UK, accessed: 2026-01-22 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    National Records of Scotland, Mid-2022 population estimates, NRS, accessed: 2026-01- 22 (2024)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Verny, N

    L. Verny, N. Sella, S. Affeldt, P. P. Singh, H. Isambert, Learning causal networks with latent variables from multivariate information in genomic data, PLOS Computational Biology 13 (10) (2017) e1005662.doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005662

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    M. d. C. Ribeiro-Dantas, H. Li, V. Cabeli, L. Dupuis, F. Simon, L. Hettal, A.-S. Hamy, H.Isambert, Learninginterpretablecausalnetworksfromverylargedatasets, application to 400,000 medical records of breast cancer patients, iScience 27 (5) (2024) 109736. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109736

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Geiger, T

    D. Geiger, T. Verma, J. Pearl, d-separation: From theorems to algorithms, in: Machine intelligence and pattern recognition, Vol. 10, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 139–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-88738-2.50018-X

    1990 doi

  36. [44]

    N. L. Zhang, D. Poole, A simple approach to bayesian network computations, in: Proc. of the Tenth Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994. URLhttps://hdl.handle.net/1783.1/757

    1994

  37. [45]

    Ducamp, C

    G. Ducamp, C. Gonzales, P.-H. Wuillemin, aGrUM/pyAgrum : a toolbox to build models and algorithms for Probabilistic Graphical Models in Python, in: T. D. Nielsen, M. Jaeger, H. Saelensminde (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Mod...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Sharma, V

    A. Sharma, V. Syrgkanis, C. Zhang, E. Kıcıman, Dowhy: Addressing challenges in expressing and validating causal assumptions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13518 (2021). doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.13518

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    K. R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, London, 1934.doi:https: //doi.org/10.4324/9780203994627

    1934 doi

  40. [48]

    A. C. Eggers, G. Tuñón, A. Dafoe, Placebo tests for causal inference, American Journal of Political Science 68 (3) (2024) 1106–1121.doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aj ps.12818

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    T. J. VanderWeele, P. Ding, Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value, Annals of internal medicine 167 (4) (2017) 268–274

    2017

  42. [50]

    D’Amico, Github repository (2026)

    B. D’Amico, Github repository (2026). URLhttps://github.com/bernardinodamico/Causal_barriers-EV_up take

    2026

  43. [51]

    Rissanen, Fisher information and the stochastic complexity, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42 (1) (1996) 40–47.doi:10.1109/18.481776

    J. Rissanen, Fisher information and the stochastic complexity, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42 (1) (1996) 40–47.doi:10.1109/18.481776

    1996 doi

  44. [52]

    C. Meek, Causal inference and causal explanation with background knowledge, in: Pro- ceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1995, pp. 403–410. Appendix A. Table A1: Mapping between the 9-fold classi...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.