P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it holds that $$\label{eq:def_generalization}
    \left \vert \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-f^*(X))^2\big] - \inf_{{f_{\diamond}}\in{\mathcal{F}}}\,
      \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-{f_{\diamond}}(X))^2\big] \right \vert \leq {\varepsilon}.$$

Distribution generalization does not require the existence of a minimax solution in ${\mathcal{F}}$ (which would require further assumptions on the function class ${\mathcal{F}}$) and instead focuses on whether an approximate solution can be identified based only on the observational distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$. If, however, there exists a function $f^* \in {\mathcal{F}}$ which, for every $\tilde{M}\in{\mathcal{M}}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}} = {\mathbb{P}}_M$, is a minimax solution for $\tilde{M}$ w.r.t. $({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{I}})$, then, in particular, $({\mathbb{P}}_{M},\mathcal{M})$ generalizes to ${\mathcal{I}}$. As the next proposition shows, generalization is closely linked to the ability of identifying the joint intervention distributions of $(X, Y)$ from the observational distribution.

0 [[Rune: maybe introduce an “${\varepsilon}$-minimax solution” in Section \[sec:robustness\]? That would make the discussion below a bit easier (and the above definition more compact)]{}]{}.

Definition \[defi:general\] says that the observational distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ is sufficient for identifying a solution $f^*$ that for all $\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ solves (up to ${\varepsilon}$) the minimax problem corresponding to $\tilde{M}$. The ability to generalize, in particular, ensures that there exists a well-defined mapping [[Jonas: does this not require that every ${\mathbb{P}}_M$ generalizes?]{}]{} $$F:\{{\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}\,\vert\,\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}\
P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it holds that $ $ \label{eq: def_generalization } 
     \left \vert \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y - f^*(X))^2\big ] - \inf_{{f_{\diamond}}\in{\mathcal{F}}}\, 
       \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-{f_{\diamond}}(X))^2\big ] \right \vert \leq { \varepsilon}.$$ 

 Distribution generalization does not require the existence of a minimax solution in $ { \mathcal{F}}$ (which would command further assumption on the function class $ { \mathcal{F}}$) and instead focus on whether an approximate solution can be identified based entirely on the experimental distribution $ { \mathbb{P}}_{M}$. If, however, there exists a function $ f^ * \in { \mathcal{F}}$ which, for every $ \tilde{M}\in{\mathcal{M}}$ with $ { \mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M } } = { \mathbb{P}}_M$, is a minimax solution for $ \tilde{M}$ w.r.t.   $ ({ \mathcal{F } }, { \mathcal{I}})$, then, in particular, $ ({ \mathbb{P}}_{M},\mathcal{M})$ generalizes to $ { \mathcal{I}}$. As the next proposal shows, generalization is close linked to the ability of identifying the joint intervention distributions of $ (X, Y)$ from the observational distribution. 

 0 [ [ Rune: maybe introduce an “ $ { \varepsilon}$-minimax solution ” in Section   \[sec: robustness\ ]? That would lay down the discussion below a bit easier (and the above definition more compendious) ] { } ] { }. 

 Definition   \[defi: general\ ] says that the observational distribution $ { \mathbb{P}}_{M}$ is sufficient for identify a solution $ f^*$ that for all $ \tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}$ with $ { \mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ solves (up to $ { \varepsilon}$) the minimax problem match to $ \tilde{M}$. The ability to generalize, in particular, ensures that there exists a well - defined function [ [ Jonas: does this not require that every $ { \mathbb{P}}_M$ generalizes? ] { } ] { } $ $ F:\{{\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}\,\vert\,\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}\
P}}_{\tipde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it holds thxt $$\label{eq:def_geuwralizetion}
    \left \vdrt \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilve{M}(i)}\vig[(Y-f^*(Z))^2\big] - \inf_{{f_{\diamond}}\in{\matfcal{F}}}\,
      \sup_{i\in{\nathral{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-{f_{\dlcmond}}(S))^2\nig] \rngit \vert \leq {\vargpsilon}.$$

Distrhbution generanixacion does not require the existence jf a mimilax solution ig ${\mauhcwl{F}}$ (shich would require further assumpfions oi the function vlass ${\mathcal{F}}$) and instead fockses on whether an approximatg sojytion can be identified based only on the observational distributkon ${\mcthbb{P}}_{M}$. If, yoqevft, there exisvs a flnction $f^* \in {\mathcal{F}}$ which, gor every $\tildc{M}\in{\methcql{M}}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{K}} = {\mathbb{P}}_M$, is a mynimax sonucion for $\tilde{M}$ w.r.t. $({\marhxal{F}}, {\kathwal{I}})$, rhev, ih 'arficulag, $({\methbb{P}}_{M},\mathdal{M})$ generaoizes to ${\mathcal{I}}$. Ax eye next propoaition srows, generalization is closely linked tm tge ability of identifyibg the joint intervenjion distrybutions of $(X, Y)$ from the observational distributimn.

0 [[Ruie: mavnc ingeofuce an “${\varepsilon}$-minimax solution” in Section \[fsc:tonustness\]? That womld make the discuxslom below a bit gasier (chd the above definitlon morg compqct)]{}]{}.

Definiuion \[drfi:general\] says that the obwervational bisrribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ is sufficiznt fot idenyifying a solution $f^*$ thct for all $\tilde{M}\ln\mathcal{J}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilae{M}}={\kadhbb{P}}_{M}$ solves (up to ${\varepsylon}$) the ninikax proclem correfponding tl $\tilde{M}$. The ability to henerclize, in particklar, ensures that there exists e well-defined mdpppng [[Jonas: does this not reqtire that everi ${\mathbb{P}}_I$ gendralizes?]{}]{} $$F:\{{\jathbb{P}}_{\vilde{M}}\,\vert\,\tijde{M}\in\mathcal{K}\
P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it holds that $$\label{eq:def_generalization} \left \vert \inf_{{f_{\diamond}}\in{\mathcal{F}}}\, \right \vert {\varepsilon}.$$ Distribution generalization of minimax solution in (which would require assumptions on the function class ${\mathcal{F}}$) instead focuses on whether an approximate solution can be identified based only on observational distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$. If, however, there exists a function $f^* \in {\mathcal{F}}$ which, every with = is a minimax solution for $\tilde{M}$ w.r.t. $({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{I}})$, then, in particular, $({\mathbb{P}}_{M},\mathcal{M})$ generalizes to ${\mathcal{I}}$. the next proposition shows, generalization is closely linked the ability of identifying joint intervention distributions of $(X, from observational distribution. [[Rune: introduce “${\varepsilon}$-minimax solution” in \[sec:robustness\]? That would make the discussion below a bit easier (and the above definition more compact)]{}]{}. Definition says that distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ sufficient identifying solution $f^*$ that $\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ solves (up to problem corresponding to $\tilde{M}$. The ability to generalize, particular, ensures there exists a well-defined mapping [[Jonas: this not require that every ${\mathbb{P}}_M$ generalizes?]{}]{} $$F:\{{\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}\,\vert\,\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}\
P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it holds thaT $$\label{eq:deF_geneRalIzaTiOn}
    \leFt \veRt \sup_{i\in{\mathcaL{i}}}{\matHbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-f^*(X))^2\big] - \inF_{{f_{\diaMoND}}\in{\mAThCal{F}}}\,
      \sUp_{i\in{\maTHcAL{i}}}{\maThBb{e}}_{\tiLdE{m}(i)}\Big[(Y-{f_{\DiaMond}}(X))^2\biG] \right \vert \Leq {\VaRepsilon}.$$

DistRIbUtion generAliZation does noT reQuire tHe ExiSTence Of a MinimAx soluTIon in ${\mAthcal{F}}$ (whIcH Would rEQuire fuRTHeR assUmptions on the funcTIoN Class ${\mathcal{F}}$) aNd instEaD FoCUSes On wHether an apPrOximaTE solutiON cAN BE idENtified based oNly on the obsERvaTional DiStrIBution ${\MathbB{P}}_{m}$. if, hOwever, there ExisTs a functiOn $f^* \in {\mAThcal{F}}$ wHIch, for eVery $\tiLde{m}\in{\MathCAl{m}}$ wIth ${\MaTHbb{p}}_{\TiLde{m}} = {\MatHbb{P}}_M$, is a MiNiMax soLutiON FOR $\tilDe{M}$ W.r.t. $({\mAthcaL{F}}, {\mathcal{I}})$, theN, in PartICulAr, $({\matHbb{P}}_{M},\MathCaL{M})$ genEralizEs to ${\mAtHcal{I}}$. As the next pRopoSition shoWs, gEnEraLiZatioN Is closEly LinKed to thE abilitY Of iDeNTIFyIng the joint interveNtION dIstributIons of $(x, y)$ fRoM The obserVaTioNal dISTribuTion.

0 [[rUnE: maybe inTroducE An “${\VaRepsiloN}$-mInimax SoLutIon” In SecTIon \[sEc:robuStness\]? ThAt wouLD make the discusSIon below a bit eASiER (AnD The aBovE definition More COmpaCt)]{}]{}.

DeFInItiON \[defi:GenerAl\] SAyS That the observationaL dIstribUtion ${\Mathbb{P}}_{M}$ is sufFicient for IDENtifying A solUTiON $f^*$ that for all $\tiLde{M}\iN\mathcal{M}$ wITh ${\mathbb{p}}_{\tildE{M}}={\mathbb{p}}_{M}$ solves (uP TO ${\varepsiLon}$) The MinImaX PRoBlem corresponDINg to $\TiLde{M}$. The AbiLity to gEneRalIze, In pArTicular, enSures thaT tHeRe ExIstS a welL-Defined mApPinG [[JOnaS: does THis not RequiRe thAt EvERy ${\mAthbb{P}}_M$ GEnERAlizEs?]{}]{} $$f:\{{\mAthbB{P}}_{\tIlDe{M}}\,\veRt\,\tiLDe{M}\In\mathcAl{M}\
P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P }}_{M}$, i t hol dstha t$$\l abel {eq:def_genera l izat ion}
    \left \vert \ sup_{ i\ i n{\m a th cal{I }}}{\ma t hb b { E}} _{ \t ild e{ M }( i)}\b ig[ (Y-f^*( X))^2\big]  -\i nf_{{f_{\dia m on d}}\in{\ma thc al{F}}}\,
    \sup_ {i \in { \math cal {I}}} {\math b b{E}}_ {\tilde{M }( i )}\big [ (Y-{f_{ \ d ia mond }}(X))^2\big] \ri g ht \vert \leq {\v arepsi lo n }. $ $ 

D ist ribution g en erali z ation d o es n o t r e quire the exi stence of a min imax s ol uti o n in $ {\mat hc a l{F }}$ (whichwoul d require  furth e r assum p tions o n thefun cti on c l as s${\ ma t hca l {F }}$ )  an d instea dfo cuses  onw h e t heranappr oxima te solution c anbe i d ent ified  base d on ly  on t he obs ervat io nal distributio n ${ \mathbb{P }}_ {M }$.  I f, ho w ever,the reexistsa funct i on$f ^ * \i n {\mathcal{F}}$ w hi c h ,for ever y $\ti l de {M } \in{\mat hc al{ M}}$ w ith $ {\ma t hb b{P}}_{\ tilde{ M }}  =  {\math bb {P}}_M $,  is  aminim a x so lution  for $\t ilde{ M }$ w.r.t. $({\ m athcal{F}}, { \ ma t h ca l {I}} )$,  then, in p arti c ular , $( { \m ath b b{P}} _{M}, \m a th c al{M})$ generalizes  t o ${\m athca l{I}}$. As th e next pro p o s ition sh ows, ge n eralization is  clos ely linked to the a bilit y of ide ntifyingt h e jointint erv ent ion d is tributions of $ (X,Y) $ fromthe  observ ati ona l d ist ri bution.
0 [[Rune :ma yb eint roduc e  an “${\ va rep si lon }$-mi n imax s oluti on”in  S e cti on \[se c :r o b ustn es s\ ]? T hat  w ouldmake the  discus sion belo w a bitea si er (and  the above de fi nition mor ecom pact)] { } ]{}.

De finition \[defi:general \ ] saystha t the  obs ervationa l d istrib uti o n ${\m athbb{ P}}_{ M} $ i s suffi c i en t f or  identifyi n g  asolut io n $f ^*$ tha t for all $\tilde{ M }\i n\mathcal{M}$  wi th $ { \ ma thb b {P } }_{ \t i lde { M }}={\mathbb{P}} _{M}$ solv es (u p to ${\va r eps il on}$) t he mini max p r oblem c orrespond ing to $\ ti lde{ M } $.The abilit y to gen eralize,i n par t ic ular,  en suresth atthere  exist s  awell- define dmappin g [[J on as: does  this not require thatevery${\ma thb b{P}}_M$gen e ral izes?]{}] {} $ $F:\{{\mat hbb {P} }_{\t ild e {M}}\ ,\ve r t\ ,\t i lde{M }\in \ mathcal{M } \
P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$, it_holds that_$$\label{eq:def_generalization}
   _\left \vert_\sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-f^*(X))^2\big]_- \inf_{{f_{\diamond}}\in{\mathcal{F}}}\,
__  _ \sup_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{M}(i)}\big[(Y-{f_{\diamond}}(X))^2\big] \right_\vert \leq {\varepsilon}.$$

Distribution generalization_does not require_the_existence of a minimax solution in ${\mathcal{F}}$ (which would require further assumptions on the_function_class ${\mathcal{F}}$)_and_instead_focuses on whether an approximate_solution can be identified based_only on_the observational distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$. If, however, there exists_a_function $f^* \in_{\mathcal{F}}$ which, for every $\tilde{M}\in{\mathcal{M}}$ with ${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}} = {\mathbb{P}}_M$,_is a minimax solution for $\tilde{M}$_w.r.t. $({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{I}})$, then,_in_particular,_$({\mathbb{P}}_{M},\mathcal{M})$ generalizes to ${\mathcal{I}}$._As the next proposition shows, generalization_is closely linked to the ability_of identifying the joint intervention distributions of_$(X, Y)$ from the observational distribution.

0_[[Rune: maybe introduce an “${\varepsilon}$-minimax_solution” in_Section \[sec:robustness\]? That would make the_discussion below a_bit easier_(and the above_definition more compact)]{}]{}.

Definition \[defi:general\] says that the_observational distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{M}$_is sufficient for identifying a solution_$f^*$_that for all_$\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}$_with_${\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}={\mathbb{P}}_{M}$ solves_(up to ${\varepsilon}$)_the_minimax problem_corresponding_to $\tilde{M}$. The ability to generalize,_in_particular, ensures that there exists a well-defined_mapping [[Jonas: does this_not_require that every ${\mathbb{P}}_M$_generalizes?]{}]{} $$F:\{{\mathbb{P}}_{\tilde{M}}\,\vert\,\tilde{M}\in\mathcal{M}\