Forecasting Is Not Attribution: Localizing Decoder Bypass in Graph-Based Neural Marketing Mix Models

Marketing mix models are used to forecast business outcomes and to attribute those outcomes to marketing channels, but these goals are not equivalent. We study a failure mode in graph-based neural MMM called attribution bypass: a high-capacity decoder can obtain low forecasting error through target autoregression, dense communication, co-movement, context, or latent memory while failing to route counterfactual sensitivity through the graph used as the attribution object. We introduce DICE-MMM as a bounded diagnostic and training framework. We do not claim that observational neural MMM identifies causal effects. Instead, DICE separates three questions often conflated in graph-based MMM: graph recovery, forecasting accuracy, and whether the trained decoder's perturbation-induced influence is graph aligned. Stage 1 trains a graph encoder with a restricted graph-mediated decoder. Stage 2 freezes the selected encoder and trains a graph-safe latent decoder whose cross-node communication must pass through the supplied graph. Decoder use is evaluated with CIG, AR-CIG, and graph-swap tests. Across controlled R/d/T swaps and an external multi-graph rawlog stress test, DICE improves stable graph recovery over CausalMMM. The experiments show that forecasting accuracy is not an attribution certificate: in a sparse-target benchmark, no-graph and full-graph decoders achieve MSE@7 around 0.004 while AR-CIG nAUPRC remains near or below zero, whereas an oracle graph reaches 0.807 +/- 0.129 at comparable MSE. Frozen graph-swap localizes the bottleneck: the same DICE-hard-trained decoder moves from nAUPRC -0.044 +/- 0.006 under learned graph inputs to 0.894 +/- 0.027 with the oracle graph. The contribution is a stress test and failure-localization framework showing that low MSE can hide attribution bypass and that the unresolved bottleneck is graph-support selection, not forecasting or decoder capacity.

When Offline Selectors Cannot Beat the Best Single Model: A Diagnostic Study on edX Dropout Prediction

Different predictors often excel on different inputs, so picking the best one per instance promises higher accuracy than committing to a single model. In practice, selectors trained from logged data routinely fail to beat the strongest single predictor. Three causes typically go unseparated before more tuning is applied: a mismatched learner, a state that does not predict which model wins, or buffer-to-deployment label shift. A three-stage diagnostic rules them out on a shared buffer. Stage~1 estimates a local ceiling on oracle recovery from $k$-NN label consistency. Stage~2 asks whether paired BC and offline-RL learners (BC, DQN, and CQL across penalty weights) reach that ceiling. Stage~3 ablates the selector state to test whether richer features would raise it. The combined verdict points to the most promising next step: tuning the learner, redesigning the state, or collecting new data. We apply it to selecting among five dropout-prediction models on edX clickstream data. Across 16 windows, the oracle beats the strongest single base model by 9.7 accuracy points on average, yet BC, DQN, and CQL land in the same test-accuracy band below it (robust to a tenfold buffer sweep and $N{=}2{,}000$ held-out examples). The bottleneck is local representational ambiguity: CQL closes the imitation gap without a deployment gain (not conservatism), regret clusters tightly across learners (not tie-breaking), and the three learners converge on test accuracy (not shift). The next iteration should change the state or collect new data, not tune the offline learner further.