Causal inference and model explainability analysis of a real world sales dataset

Deep models for sales forecasting, such as WaveNet-style dilated convolutional networks, are accurate but opaque: when a single model predicts sales for one of many series, it offers no account of why. We add a post-hoc, architecture-agnostic counterfactual interpretability layer to a multi-series WaveNet forecaster trained on the full Corporacion Favorita grocery dataset (174,685 series over 1,688 days). The method decomposes each forecast into contributions that sum exactly to the predicted value, avoiding the allocation artifacts we observed with additive SHAP-style attribution. We evaluate faithfulness with a deletion/insertion protocol and find a statistically significant effect on both tests (deletion gap 0.22, p<0.001; insertion gap 0.27, p<0.01; robust across five background-sampling seeds), establishing that the attributions reflect genuine model behavior rather than plausible-looking artifacts. We then characterize, honestly, where attribution is and is not informative: reliance on the promotion signal is heterogeneous across series (median ratio approximately 1.0, with roughly 20% of series showing a strong effect), and the model captures the shape of the weekly sales cycle (day-of-week r=0.78) while systematically under-predicting its amplitude. Our contribution is not improved accuracy but an interpretability layer with a rigorous faithfulness evaluation and a candid account of its limits.

Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over "candidate explanations," a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.

In causal inference, confounders are variables that influence both treatment decisions and outcomes. However, unlike as in randomized clinical trials, the treatment assignment mechanism in observational studies is not known, and it is thus unclear which covariates act as confounders. Here, we aim to generate insight for causal inference and answer: which of the observed covariates act as confounders? We introduce ConfoundingSHAP, a Shapley-based method for attributing confounding strength to individual covariates. Our contributions are twofold. First, we propose a Shapley game targeted to infer the confounding strength of the covariates. Our resulting Shapley values differ from the standard applications of SHAP explanations on causal targets, such as understanding treatment effect heterogeneity, which are ill-suited for our task. Second, as our task requires evaluating the value function over many adjustment sets, we provide a scalable TabPFN-based estimation that avoids exhaustive refitting. We demonstrate the practical value across various datasets, where ConfoundingSHAP provides informative explanations of which observed covariates drive confounding and thereby helps to provide more insight for causal inference in practice.