For these systems, a common issue is the difficulty of collecting sufficiently refined timescale data.

For these systems, a common issue is the difficulty of collecting sufficiently refined timescale data.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents is significantly hampered by the profound limitations of existing evaluation benchmarks in terms of accuracy, reproducibility, and scalability. To address this critical gap, we introduce NaturalGAIA, a novel benchmark engineered on the principle of Causal Pathways. This design paradigm structures complex tasks into a series of programmatically verifiable atomic steps, ensuring a rigorous, fully automated, and reproducible standard for assessment. Concurrently, to mitigate the inherent capability deficits of agents, we developed LightManus, a hierarchical agent architecture specifically optimized for long-horizon tasks. We leveraged this agent to generate a high-quality, human-verified trajectory dataset that uniquely captures diverse and even self-correcting interaction patterns of LLMs. We then utilized this dataset to perform Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) on the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model. Our experiments reveal that NaturalGAIA presents a formidable challenge to current state-of-the-art LLMs; even the top-performing Claude-sonnet-4 achieved a Weighted Pathway Success Rate (WPSR) of only 34.6%. Moreover, while RFT substantially improved the smaller model's GUI execution capabilities (WPSR increased from 3.3% to 10.8%), its performance degraded sharply when handling complex scenarios. This outcome highlights the inherent capability ceiling of smaller models when faced with comprehensive tasks that integrate perception, decision-making, and execution. This research contributes a rigorous evaluation standard and a high-quality dataset to the community, aiming to guide the future development of GUI agents.

Modern operational landscapes, spanning domains such as retail, healthcare, finance, and software systems, are increasingly characterized by complex interdependencies and massive data streams. In such settings, anomalies rarely arise from a single isolated factor; rather, they emerge as the cumulative effect of multi-hop causal chains. Existing RCA methods typically focus on detecting outliers or isolating single nodes based on correlation or localized attribution. However, these approaches do not provide a complete explanation of why a failure occurred. In other words they do not systematically trace all possible causal pathways from an observed effect back to its initial triggers. The primary motivation for our work is to address this limitation by developing a package that systematically reconstructs the full causal pathway from an observed anomaly back to its root cause. By leveraging the strengths of the DoWhy causal inference library, our method extends existing techniques to not only identify individual anomalous nodes but also trace entire multi-hop causal chains. This end-to-end approach enables practitioners to intervene precisely at the earliest disruption points, thereby reducing the risk of recurring failures and improving overall system reliability.

Recent advances in deep learning (DL) have prompted the development of high-performing early warning score (EWS) systems, predicting clinical deteriorations such as acute kidney injury, acute myocardial infarction, or circulatory failure. DL models have proven to be powerful tools for various tasks but come with the cost of lacking interpretability and limited generalizability, hindering their clinical applications. To develop a practical EWS system applicable to various outcomes, we propose causally-informed explainable early prediction model, which leverages causal discovery to identify the underlying causal relationships of prediction and thus owns two unique advantages: demonstrating the explicit interpretation of the prediction while exhibiting decent performance when applied to unfamiliar environments. Benefiting from these features, our approach achieves superior accuracy for 6 different critical deteriorations and achieves better generalizability across different patient groups, compared to various baseline algorithms. Besides, we provide explicit causal pathways to serve as references for assistant clinical diagnosis and potential interventions. The proposed approach enhances the practical application of deep learning in various medical scenarios.

Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.

The conventional discourse on existential risks (x-risks) from AI typically focuses on abrupt, dire events caused by advanced AI systems, particularly those that might achieve or surpass human-level intelligence. These events have severe consequences that either lead to human extinction or irreversibly cripple human civilization to a point beyond recovery. This discourse, however, often neglects the serious possibility of AI x-risks manifesting incrementally through a series of smaller yet interconnected disruptions, gradually crossing critical thresholds over time. This paper contrasts the conventional "decisive AI x-risk hypothesis" with an "accumulative AI x-risk hypothesis." While the former envisions an overt AI takeover pathway, characterized by scenarios like uncontrollable superintelligence, the latter suggests a different causal pathway to existential catastrophes. This involves a gradual accumulation of critical AI-induced threats such as severe vulnerabilities and systemic erosion of econopolitical structures. The accumulative hypothesis suggests a boiling frog scenario where incremental AI risks slowly converge, undermining resilience until a triggering event results in irreversible collapse. Through systems analysis, this paper examines the distinct assumptions differentiating these two hypotheses. It is then argued that the accumulative view reconciles seemingly incompatible perspectives on AI risks. The implications of differentiating between these causal pathways -- the decisive and the accumulative -- for the governance of AI risks as well as long-term AI safety are discussed.

Since the rise of fair machine learning as a critical field of inquiry, many different notions on how to quantify and measure discrimination have been proposed in the literature. Some of these notions, however, were shown to be mutually incompatible. Such findings make it appear that numerous different kinds of fairness exist, thereby making a consensus on the appropriate measure of fairness harder to reach, hindering the applications of these tools in practice. In this paper, we investigate one of these key impossibility results that relates the notions of statistical and predictive parity. Specifically, we derive a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity, and obtain a novel insight into how this criterion is related to statistical parity through the legal doctrines of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and the notion of business necessity. Our results show that through a more careful causal analysis, the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions through the concept of business necessity. Finally, we demonstrate the importance of our findings on a real-world example.

As machine learning methods gain prominence within clinical decision-making, addressing fairness concerns becomes increasingly urgent. Despite considerable work dedicated to detecting and ameliorating algorithmic bias, today's methods are deficient with potentially harmful consequences. Our causal perspective sheds new light on algorithmic bias, highlighting how different sources of dataset bias may appear indistinguishable yet require substantially different mitigation strategies. We introduce three families of causal bias mechanisms stemming from disparities in prevalence, presentation, and annotation. Our causal analysis underscores how current mitigation methods tackle only a narrow and often unrealistic subset of scenarios. We provide a practical three-step framework for reasoning about fairness in medical imaging, supporting the development of safe and equitable AI prediction models.

The goal of personalized decision making is to map a unit's characteristics to an action tailored to maximize the expected outcome for that unit. Obtaining high-quality mappings of this type is the goal of the dynamic regime literature. In healthcare settings, optimizing policies with respect to a particular causal pathway may be of interest as well. For example, we may wish to maximize the chemical effect of a drug given data from an observational study where the chemical effect of the drug on the outcome is entangled with the indirect effect mediated by differential adherence. In such cases, we may wish to optimize the direct effect of a drug, while keeping the indirect effect to that of some reference treatment. [16] shows how to combine mediation analysis and dynamic treatment regime ideas to defines policies associated with causal pathways and counterfactual responses to these policies. In this paper, we derive a variety of methods for learning high quality policies of this type from data, in a causal model corresponding to a longitudinal setting of practical importance. We illustrate our methods via a dataset of HIV patients undergoing therapy, gathered in the Nigerian PEPFAR program.