Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper reinterprets recursive multi-step forecasting by framing exposure bias as an epistemic underidentification issue rather than merely a distribution shift problem. The authors prove that under conditions of partial observability, recursive rollouts can lead to errors in identifying the correct targets for predictions due to the influence of self-generated states. Their empirical findings reveal that incorporating provenance-aware correction can enhance performance, highlighting the nuanced relationship between induced states and forecasting accuracy.
Recursive forecasting errors stem from self-induced epistemic uncertainty, not just distribution shifts, revealing deeper layers of model underidentification.
Recursive multi-step forecasting is usually framed as distribution shift: models are trained on observed histories but deployed on their own predictions. We show this framing is incomplete by proving that, under partial observability or state truncation, recursive rollout is also an epistemic underidentification problem. Even with deterministic latent dynamics, one-step Bayes supervision identifies behavior only on observed contexts and need not identify the deployed recursive predictor once rollout queries self-generated induced states whose correct local targets are not determined by numeric state alone. We formalize this with induced states $Z$ and provenance variables $P$, and derive a decomposition of induced-state error into teacher-forcing/rollout mismatch, representation--class approximation, and provenance information gaps. Empirically, we show that rollout enters a distinct induced-state regime, that fixed induced states define a distinct local corrective task, and that closed-loop gains arise not only from local adaptation but also from changing the induced states visited during rollout. Using a simple binary provenance encoding, provenance-aware correction can further improve performance, though gains are conditional rather than uniform. These results recast exposure bias as reasoning under self-induced epistemic uncertainty.