Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper implements the causal perception framework by 脕lvarez and Ruggieri (2025), operationalizing both structural and parametrical causal perception in agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs). By designing algorithms to compute interventional and counterfactual distributions, the authors demonstrate how differing causal perceptions can influence accuracy and fairness in decision-making, particularly in a multi-expert context using the German Credit dataset. Key findings reveal that the choice of distance metric and threshold significantly impacts fairness assessments, highlighting the situated nature of bias in relation to an agent's SCM.
Competing causal models lead to radically different fairness assessments, revealing that bias is inherently tied to the agent's perspective.
Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) of the same system infer different probability distributions, including the hypothetical distributions implied by each agent's SCM under the same set of interventions. It shapes how agents reason about the system and how they perceive its fairness. Causal perception is a promising probabilistic framework, but it has remained purely theoretical. This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of 脕lvarez and Ruggieri (2025). We operationalize structural (agents disagree on the causal graph) and parametrical (agents agree on the causal graph but disagree on its weights) causal perception. We design algorithms for computing interventional and counterfactual distributions and propose suitable distance measures to quantify the disagreement. Using the German Credit dataset, we illustrate how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting. We show that the perception verdict is sensitive to the choice of distance metric and threshold. We also show that causal perception changes fairness assessments and threshold-based decisions. Bias proves situated with respect to the agent's SCM, demonstrating that competing worldviews in fairness problems cannot be ignored.
