Despite the increasing relevance of forecasting methods, the causal implications of these algorithms remain largely unexplored. This is concerning considering that, even under simplifying assumptions such as causal sufficiency, the statistical risk of a model can differ significantly from its \textit{causal risk}. Here, we study the problem of *causal generalization* -- generalizing from the observational to interventional distributions -- in forecasting. Our goal is to find answers to the question: How does the efficacy of an autoregressive (VAR) model in predicting statistical associations compare with its ability to predict under interventions? To this end, we introduce the framework of *causal learning theory* for forecasting. Using this framework, we obtain a characterization of the difference between statistical and causal risks, which helps identify sources of divergence between them. Under causal sufficiency, the problem of causal generalization amounts to learning under covariate shifts albeit with additional structure (restriction to interventional distributions). This structure allows us to obtain uniform convergence bounds on causal generalizability for the class of VAR models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that provides theoretical guarantees for causal generalization in the time-series setting.
翻译:尽管预测方法的相关性越来越大,但这些算法的因果关系基本上仍未得到探讨。这是因为,即使根据诸如因果充分性等简化假设,模型的统计风险也与其\ textit{causal risk}大不相同。在这里,我们研究了在预测中“因果概括化”的问题 -- -- 从观察分布到干预分布的概括化。我们的目标是找到问题的答案:自动递减模式在预测统计协会方面的效力如何与其在干预下预测的能力相比较?为此,我们引入了“因果学习理论* ” 的预测框架。我们利用这一框架,对统计风险和因果风险之间的差异进行了定性,这有助于找出差异的根源。在因果充实性下,因果概括化问题相当于在连带变化(限制干预分布)下学习。这一结构使我们能够在VAR模型类别因果关系上取得一致的一致一致的一致界限。我们最了解的是,这是在时间序列中为一般分类提供理论保证的首项工作。