Recent advancements in unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) and semi-supervised learning (SSL), particularly incorporating causality, have led to significant methodological improvements in these learning problems. However, a formal theory that explains the role of causality in the generalization performance of UDA/SSL is still lacking. In this paper, we consider the UDA/SSL scenarios where we access $m$ labelled source data and $n$ unlabelled target data as training instances under different causal settings with a parametric probabilistic model. We study the learning performance (e.g., excess risk) of prediction in the target domain from an information-theoretic perspective. Specifically, we distinguish two scenarios: the learning problem is called causal learning if the feature is the cause and the label is the effect, and is called anti-causal learning otherwise. We show that in causal learning, the excess risk depends on the size of the source sample at a rate of $O(\frac{1}{m})$ only if the labelling distribution between the source and target domains remains unchanged. In anti-causal learning, we show that the unlabelled data dominate the performance at a rate of typically $O(\frac{1}{n})$. These results bring out the relationship between the data sample size and the hardness of the learning problem with different causal mechanisms.

The ability to learn and act in novel situations is still a prerogative of animate intelligence, as current machine learning methods mostly fail when moving beyond the standard i.i.d. setting. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Most machine learning tasks are anti-causal, i.e., we infer causes (labels) from effects (observations). Typically, in supervised learning we build systems that try to directly invert causal mechanisms. Instead, in this paper we argue that strong generalization capabilities crucially hinge on searching and validating meaningful hypotheses, requiring access to a causal model. In such a framework, we want to find a cause that leads to the observed effect. Anti-causal models are used to drive this search, but a causal model is required for validation. We investigate the fundamental differences between causal and anti-causal tasks, discuss implications for topics ranging from adversarial attacks to disentangling factors of variation, and provide extensive evidence from the literature to substantiate our view. We advocate for incorporating causal models in supervised learning to shift the paradigm from inference only, to search and validation.