pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24832 · v1 · pith:S6R3FHPQnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 💻 cs.AI

Difference-Making without Making a Difference

Sander Beckers This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords actual causationdifference-makingcounterfactualsregularity accountscausal definitionstype distinctions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Andreas and Günther's most recent definition of actual causation satisfies all three of their proposed types at once.

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

Andreas and Günther presented seven definitions of actual causation in seven papers and divided them into three competing types: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. The paper shows that their newest definition, labeled as factual difference-making, meets the conditions for all three types simultaneously. This collapses the claimed distinctions among the types. Direct comparison of the new definition against the prior six on key examples then shows that none of the seven definitions holds up.

Core claim

The most recent factual difference-making definition instantiates all three types of accounts, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. Comparing the novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples reveals that this undermines all seven of their accounts.

What carries the argument

A single definition of actual causation that satisfies the criteria of factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based accounts at the same time.

If this is right

  • The three types of accounts are not meaningfully distinct from one another.
  • All seven definitions of actual causation face the same underlying problems.
  • Any classification that treats the three types as separate cannot be sustained.
  • Further definitions in this series would need to avoid crossing the type boundaries to remain distinct.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Work on actual causation may need to drop the three-type taxonomy and seek a different organizing principle.
  • Similar overlaps could appear in other families of causation definitions outside this series.
  • Re-running the comparisons on a fresh set of examples chosen without reference to any of the seven accounts would test the robustness of the undermining result.

Load-bearing premise

The seven definitions can be fairly evaluated against the same set of crucial examples without the selection or interpretation of those examples depending on the critic's own preferred framework.

What would settle it

An example of causation in which the newest definition satisfies only one of the three types' criteria and does not undermine the performance of the earlier six definitions.

read the original abstract

Over a series of seven papers, Andreas & G\"unther have introduced seven definitions of actual causation and have classified them as belonging to three different, competing, types of accounts: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. I show that their most recent - factual difference-making - definition instantiates all three types, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. I further compare their novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples, revealing that this undermines all seven of their accounts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that Andreas & Günther's seven definitions of actual causation, classified across their papers into three competing types (factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based), are distinctions without a difference because their most recent factual difference-making definition instantiates all three types. It further compares this account to the prior six on crucial examples, concluding that all seven accounts are undermined.

Significance. If the central argument holds with non-circular criteria, it would indicate that the typological framework developed over the seven papers does not yield substantive distinctions and that the example-based comparisons do not isolate a viable account, affecting work on actual causation definitions in logic and AI.

major comments (2)
  1. [Instantiation argument (abstract and main comparison section)] The claim that the factual difference-making definition instantiates counterfactual difference-making and regularity-based accounts requires explicit, independent criteria for type membership that match the original authors' usage in their prior papers rather than the critic's reconstruction; without this, the 'instantiates all three' step does not establish that the typology collapses.
  2. [Crucial examples comparison] The subsequent comparison on crucial examples inherits the same risk: the examples may be chosen or interpreted so that only the new account survives, without an independent justification that the same test set would have been used by the original authors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. The two major comments raise valid concerns about the need for greater explicitness in our typological criteria and example selection. We address each point below and commit to revisions that strengthen the manuscript without altering its core argument.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claim that the factual difference-making definition instantiates counterfactual difference-making and regularity-based accounts requires explicit, independent criteria for type membership that match the original authors' usage in their prior papers rather than the critic's reconstruction; without this, the 'instantiates all three' step does not establish that the typology collapses.

    Authors: We agree that explicit criteria are needed. Our classification draws directly from the distinctions Andreas & Günther themselves draw across their seven papers: factual difference-making is defined via actual-world differences in the cause variable, counterfactual via interventions or closest worlds, and regularity via covering laws or regularities. In the revised version we will add a new subsection (likely 2.1) that quotes the relevant passages from their papers to define each type, then shows step-by-step how the latest definition satisfies all three quoted criteria simultaneously. This makes the instantiation argument rest on their own wording rather than any external reconstruction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The subsequent comparison on crucial examples inherits the same risk: the examples may be chosen or interpreted so that only the new account survives, without an independent justification that the same test set would have been used by the original authors.

    Authors: The examples are drawn from the standard set used throughout the actual-causation literature (including cases Andreas & Günther discuss or cite in their own work, such as preemption, overdetermination, and switching scenarios). In revision we will add an explicit subsection justifying the test set by (a) listing the examples with citations to where they appear in Andreas & Günther's papers or in the broader literature they engage, and (b) explaining that these are precisely the cases their typology was intended to differentiate. This provides the independent justification requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central claim rests on direct inspection of external definitions

full rationale

The paper takes the seven definitions and the three-type classification directly from Andreas & Günther's prior publications and performs a side-by-side comparison to show that the newest definition satisfies the criteria for all three types. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential redefinitions appear; the typology is imported as given rather than constructed to force the conclusion. The subsequent example comparisons inherit the same external grounding. This is a standard non-circular critique whose load-bearing steps are verifiable against the cited source papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a conceptual critique paper. No free parameters, invented entities, or empirical data are involved. The central assumption is the validity of the three-type classification introduced by the critiqued authors.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The classification of causation definitions into three distinct types (factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, regularity-based) is a meaningful and non-redundant taxonomy.
    The paper's claim that the distinctions are without a difference presupposes that the taxonomy was intended to be substantive.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5590 in / 1027 out tokens · 24243 ms · 2026-06-25T23:13:02.646335+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Australasian Philosophical Review9, 2 (2025), 205–212

    Factual Difference-Making is Equivalent to a Counterfactual Theory. Australasian Philosophical Review9, 2 (2025), 205–212. Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther

    2025

  2. [2]

    Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther

    Causation in Terms of Production.Philosophical Studies 177, 1565-1591 (2020). Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther. 2021a. Difference-Making Causation.Journal of Philosophy118, 12 (2021), 680–701. Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther. 2021b. A Ramsey Test Analysis of Causation for Causal Models. British journal for the philosophy of science72, 2 (2021). Holge...

    2020

  3. [3]

    Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther

    Actual Causation.Dialectica76 (2022). Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther. 2024a. A Lewisian Regularity Theory.Philosophical Studies181, 2145-2176 (2024). Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther. 2024b. A Regularity Theory of Causation.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly105 (2024), 2–32. Holger Andreas and Mario G¨ unther

    2022

  4. [4]

    12 Sander Beckers

    Factual Difference-Making.Australasian Philosophical Review(2025). 12 Sander Beckers. 2021a. Causal Sufficiency and Actual Causation.Journal of Philosophical Logic50 (2021), 1341–1374. Sander Beckers. 2021b. The Counterfactual NESS Definition of Causation. InProceedings of The Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 6210–6217. Sander Beckers

    2025

  5. [5]

    InProceedings of the 4th Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning (CLeaR 2025)

    Actual Causation using Nondeterministic Causal Models. InProceedings of the 4th Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning (CLeaR 2025). PMLR. Sander Beckers and Joost Vennekens

    2025

  6. [6]

    Synthese195, 2 (2018), 835–862

    A Principled Approach to Defining Actual Causation. Synthese195, 2 (2018), 835–862. J. Dmitri Gallow

    2018

  7. [7]

    Clark Glymour, David Danks, Bruce Glymour, Frederick Eberhardt, Joseph Ramsey, Richard Scheines, Peter Spirtes, Choh Man Teng, and Jiji Zhang

    A Model-Invariant Theory of Causation.Philosophical Review130, 1 (2021), 45–96. Clark Glymour, David Danks, Bruce Glymour, Frederick Eberhardt, Joseph Ramsey, Richard Scheines, Peter Spirtes, Choh Man Teng, and Jiji Zhang

    2021

  8. [8]

    Actual causation: a stone soup essay.Synthese 2 (2010), 169–192. Issue

    2010

  9. [9]

    Causation and the price of transitivity.Journal of Philosophy97, 4 (2000), 198–222. N. Hall

    2000

  10. [10]

    Structural equations and causation.Philosophical Studies132, 1 (2007), 109–136. J. Halpern and J. Pearl

    2007

  11. [11]

    Part I: Causes

    Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part I: Causes. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science56, 4 (2005), 843–87. Joseph Y. Halpern. 2016.Actual Causality. MIT Press. C. Hitchcock

    2005

  12. [12]

    The intransitivity of causation revealed in equations and graphs.Journal of Philosophy98 (2001), 273–299. C. Hitchcock

    2001

  13. [13]

    Prevention, Preemption, and the principle of Sufficient Reason.The Philosophical review116, 4 (2007), 495–532. C. Hitchcock

    2007

  14. [14]

    Structural equations and causation: six counterexamples.Philosophical Studies 144 (2009), 391–401. Issue

    2009

  15. [15]

    John Mackie

    Causation.Journal of Philosophy70 (1973), 113–126. John Mackie. 1974.The Cement of the Universe. Oxford University Press. 13 Brad Weslake

    1973

  16. [16]

    Brad Weslake

    A Partial Theory of Actual Causation.The British Journal for the Philosophy of Scienceforthcoming (2015). Brad Weslake

    2015

  17. [17]

    Richard W

    Commentary on Factual Difference-Making.Australasian Philosophical Review 9, 2 (2025), 167–176. Richard W. Wright

    2025

  18. [18]

    Richard W

    Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts.Iowa Law Review73 (1988), 1001–1077. Richard W. Wright

    1988