Causal Machine Learning for Identifying Market Stress Drivers: A Leakage-Safe Walk-Forward Investigation
Keywords:
causal machine learning; market stress detection; walk-forward validation; data leakage; financial stability; drawdown risk; interpretability; governanceAbstract
The early identification of market stress drivers is essential for maintaining financial stability, yet conventional machine learning approaches suffer from persistent causal confusion and evaluation leakage that undermine their practical credibility. This paper develops a leakage-safe walk-forward framework that integrates causal machine learning with rigorous temporal validation to isolate structural drivers of market drawdowns. We argue that the standard cross-validation protocols commonly adopted in financial machine learning violate the temporal ordering of information, leading to inflated performance metrics and spurious causal attributions. By contrast, our proposed architecture enforces strict temporal independence across training, validation, and test partitions while embedding causal inference methods—including double machine learning and heterogeneous treatment effect estimation—within a walk-forward loop. The framework is designed to separate persistent market stress signals from transient volatility, thereby enabling more robust early-warning systems. We examine the system-level trade-offs between predictive accuracy, interpretability, and computational sustainability, and discuss the governance implications of deploying causal models in high-stakes financial regulation. Through a series of conceptual case illustrations drawn from recent literature on leakage-safe evaluation and causal discovery, we demonstrate how the proposed methodology mitigates overfitting to spurious correlations and enhances the economic credibility of stress detection. The paper concludes with forward-looking recommendations for the design of causal, leakage-resilient infrastructures in financial surveillance.
References
1. Athey, S., & Imbens, G. (2016). The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 3–32.
2. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
3. Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2020). Causal inference: What if. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
4. Andersen, T. G., & Bollerslev, T. (1998). Answering the skeptics: Yes, standard volatility models do provide accurate forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 885–905.
5. Liu, T. (2026). Leakage-Safe Benchmark Design for Market-Stress Early Warning: An Economically Credible Evaluation.
6. Liu, T. (2026). Beyond volatility: A leakage-safe residual-stress signal for drawdown risk monitoring. Available at SSRN 6503179.
7. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
8. Liu, T. (2026). Interpretable Machine Learning for Volatility Forecasting Under Realistic Walk-Forward Constraints.
9. Liu, T. (2026). PCA-APT Stress Index for Market Drawdowns.
10. Varian, H. R. (2014). Big data: New tricks for econometrics. Journal of Economic Literature, 52(2), 331–359.
11. Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable machine learning: A guide for making black box models explainable. Independently published.
12. Liu, T. (2026). A Comparative Study of Transformer-Based and Classical Models for Financial Time-Series Forecasting. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(3), 203.
13. Gu, S., Kelly, B., & Xiu, D. (2020). Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. Review of Financial Studies, 33(5), 2223–2273.
14. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785–794).
15. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.
16. Liu, T. (2026). Volatility Forecasting and Early-Warning Market Stress Detection: A Leakage-Safe Evaluation with Tree Ensembles and Transformers.
17. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
18. Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.
19. Liu, T. (2022, December). Financial Constraint’Impact on Firms’ ESG Rating Based on Chinese Stock Market. In 2022 4th International Conference on Economic Management and Cultural Industry (ICEMCI 2022) (pp. 1085-1095). Atlantis Press.
20. Hu, L., & Shen, Y. (2026). A predictive analytics approach for forecasting global stock index returns using deep learning techniques. Decision Analytics Journal, 100685.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Global Financial Analytics Research Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.



