Abstract
Causal Bayesian networks are 'causal' models since they make predictionsabout interventional distributions. To connect such causal model predictions toreal-world outcomes, we must determine which actions in the world correspond towhich interventions in the model. For example, to interpret an action as anintervention on a treatment variable, the action will presumably have to a)change the distribution of treatment in a way that corresponds to theintervention, and b) not change other aspects, such as how the outcome dependson the treatment; while the marginal distributions of some variables may changeas an effect. We introduce a formal framework to make such requirements fordifferent interpretations of actions as interventions precise. We prove thatthe seemingly natural interpretation of actions as interventions is circular:Under this interpretation, every causal Bayesian network that correctly modelsthe observational distribution is trivially also interventionally valid, and noaction yields empirical data that could possibly falsify such a model. We provean impossibility result: No interpretation exists that is non-circular andsimultaneously satisfies a set of natural desiderata. Instead, we examinenon-circular interpretations that may violate some desiderata and show how thismay in turn enable the falsification of causal models. By rigorously examininghow a causal Bayesian network could be a 'causal' model of the world instead ofmerely a mathematical object, our formal framework contributes to theconceptual foundations of causal representation learning, causal discovery, andcausal abstraction, while also highlighting some limitations of existingapproaches.