Thanks for the link, but (having only skimmed it, so maybe I missed it) I don’t think the paper analyzes this sort of scheme? It says that you need to have at least some randomness so that options are explored, but this is somewhat orthogonal to my claim (that you might want to cancel the market 99.9% of the time and take a random decision which is not informed by the market 0.1% of the time to make the market predict the causal consequences of your decision via implementing the do() operator this way).
I would be curious if any literature actually analyzes the type of scheme that uses policy markets to implement CDT instead of EDT.
In the academic literature, this sort of scheme has been analyzed by Chen et al., e.g.: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TEAC-final1.pdf
Thanks for the link, but (having only skimmed it, so maybe I missed it) I don’t think the paper analyzes this sort of scheme? It says that you need to have at least some randomness so that options are explored, but this is somewhat orthogonal to my claim (that you might want to cancel the market 99.9% of the time and take a random decision which is not informed by the market 0.1% of the time to make the market predict the causal consequences of your decision via implementing the do() operator this way).
I would be curious if any literature actually analyzes the type of scheme that uses policy markets to implement CDT instead of EDT.