How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A complete three-vertex skeleton has several equivalent DAGs
Example
On vertices , the DAGs , , and , , have the same complete skeleton and no unshielded colliders. They are Markov equivalent. Suppose the first DAG has a full-joint law from an observed-only Markovian recursive model with a topological parent-kernel factorization, faithful to that DAG, and a perfect conditional-independence oracle for that law. Each edge points in opposite directions in the two DAGs, so their CPDAG is the fully undirected triangle; perfect-oracle PC retains all three edges and returns that pattern.
diagram failed to render:
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=stealth, node distance=15mm]
\node at (0,0) (a1) {$A$}; \node at (1.5,0) (b1) {$B$}; \node at (0,-1.3) (c1) {$C$};
\draw[->] (a1) -- (b1); \draw[->] (a1) -- (c1); \draw[->] (b1) -- (c1);
\node at (4,0) (a2) {$A$}; \node at (2.5,0) (b2) {$B$}; \node at (4,-1.3) (c2) {$C$};
\draw[->] (b2) -- (a2); \draw[->] (c2) -- (a2); \draw[->] (c2) -- (b2);
\node at (0,-3.1) (a3) {$A$}; \node at (1.5,-3.1) (b3) {$B$}; \node at (0,-4.4) (c3) {$C$};
\draw[-] (a3) -- (b3); \draw[-] (a3) -- (c3); \draw[-] (b3) -- (c3);
\node at (0.75,0.55) {first DAG};
\node at (3.25,0.55) {second DAG};
\node at (0.75,-5) {CPDAG};
\end{tikzpicture}Vertices denote graph variables, arrows denote directed edges, and plain segments denote undirected edges. The pictures illustrate the edge orientations; the verification uses the path and equivalence definitions directly.
Example references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The two finite DAGs, the first DAG's observed-only Markovian recursive model and full-joint parent-kernel factorization, its faithful law, and its perfect conditional-independence oracle.
A direct one-edge path has no internal vertices and is active under every conditioning set disjoint from its endpoints. Paths, active paths, and d-separation in a finite DAG
DAGs are Markov equivalent exactly when their skeletons and unshielded colliders agree. DAG Markov equivalence is determined by skeletons and unshielded colliders
A CPDAG directs exactly the edges with one orientation throughout the class and leaves an edge undirected when both directions occur. DAG Markov equivalence, patterns, and CPDAGs
PC deletes a pair only after a conditional-independence answer, then orients unshielded colliders and closes under R1–R3. Population PC causal-discovery algorithm
The background-free R1–R3 closure of the collider pattern is the CPDAG. The background-free Meek rules complete a CPDAG
The causally sufficient discovery regime supplies the observed-only Markovian parent-kernel model, faithfulness to the first DAG, and the exact oracle; hence oracle independences agree with its d-separations. Causally sufficient perfect-oracle discovery regime
Verification
Each graph has all three possible edges, so there is no triple with nonadjacent endpoints and in particular no unshielded collider. Their skeletons and unshielded colliders agree; [F2] proves Markov equivalence. Every distinct pair has a direct active path under every allowed conditioning set by [F1], so neither DAG has a d-separation between distinct vertices. Faithfulness in [F6] makes the oracle dependent on every pair and set.
In the two DAGs, the orientations of , , and are respectively versus , versus , and versus . Thus each edge is oriented both ways in the equivalence class, and [F3] makes every edge undirected in the CPDAG.
The perfect oracle never reports independence for any pair by step 1.1, so the algorithm deletes no edge. With three vertices, after the level- tests the complete triangle permits level ; at level each pair has only one possible conditioning vertex at each endpoint, and the oracle again returns dependence by step 1.1. The stopping condition then fails because an endpoint has at most one neighbor other than the other endpoint, fewer than the required two. Thus the skeleton search terminates. There is no unshielded triple to orient, and none of R1–R3 can fire because each requires at least one directed edge; the finite orientation scan therefore terminates as well. PC returns the undirected triangle, which [F5] identifies with the CPDAG found in step 1.2. The diagram is only a rendering of these verified adjacencies and orientations.
Depends on
- Population PC causal-discovery algorithm
- DAG Markov equivalence, patterns, and CPDAGs
- Paths, active paths, and d-separation in a finite DAG
- DAG Markov equivalence is determined by skeletons and unshielded colliders
- The background-free Meek rules complete a CPDAG
- Causally sufficient perfect-oracle discovery regime
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
17 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Meek, Causal Inference and Causal Explanation with Background Knowledge, Theorem 1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Lauritzen, Graphical Models lecture notes, Theorem 2.62 (standard reference, not scraped)