On the Sensitivity of Granger Causality to Errors‐In‐Variables, Linear Transformations and Subsampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the sensitivity of Granger causality to the addition of noise, the introduction of subsampling, and the application of causal invertible filters to weakly stationary processes. Using canonical spectral factors and Wold decompositions, we give general conditions under which additive noise or filtering distorts Granger-causal properties by inducing (spurious) Granger causality, as well as conditions under which it does not. For the errors-in-variables case, we give a continuity result, which implies that: a 'small' noise-to-signal ratio entails 'small' distortions in Granger causality. On filtering, we give general necessary and sufficient conditions under which 'spurious' causal relations between (vector) time series are not induced by linear transformations of the variables involved. This also yields transformations (or filters) which can eliminate Granger causality from one vector to another one. In a number of cases, we clarify results in the existing literature, with a number of calculations streamlining some existing approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".