Nonlinear machine-learning models are increasingly used to discover causal relationships in time-series data, yet the interpretation of their outputs remains poorly understood. In particular, causal scores produced by regularized neural autoregressive models are often treated as analogues of regression coefficients, leading to misleading claims of statistical significance. In this paper, we argue that causal relevance in nonlinear time-series models should be evaluated through forecast necessity rather than coefficient magnitude, and we present a practical evaluation procedure for doing so. We present an interpretable evaluation framework based on systematic edge ablation and forecast comparison, which tests whether a candidate causal relationship is required for accurate prediction. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a case study model, we apply this framework to a real-world case study of democratic development, modeled as a multivariate time series of panel data - democracy indicators across 139 countries. We show that relationships with similar causal scores can differ dramatically in their predictive necessity due to redundancy, temporal persistence, and regime-specific effects. Our results demonstrate how forecast-necessity testing supports more reliable causal reasoning in applied AI systems and provides practical guidance for interpreting nonlinear time-series models in high-stakes domains.

In 2011, Judea Pearl received the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize in Computing, for fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning. It includes pioneering the development of causal discovery algorithms. These computer algorithms can analyze large multivariate datasets and automatically discover the causal relationships among the constituent variables. They have been widely used in many critical fields such as medicine and economics to support decisions. However, to our knowledge, they have not been leveraged in law. This paper attempts to alleviate this gap by investigating whether causal discovery algorithms can be leveraged for automated generation of legal arguments. To that end, a novel legal dataset is prepared by identifying 17 legal concepts, such as physical assault and property dispute. A curated collection of 150 homicide cases are annotated with these concepts, e.g., a case is annotated with physical assault only if a physical assault had been reported in that case. Subsequently, a selected set of widely-used causal discovery algorithms is applied to the annotated dataset to discover the causal relationships between the legal concepts. Additionally, the degrees of belief associated with the discovered relationships are quantified in mathematical probabilities. It is shown that some of the causal relationships help generate viable legal arguments, e.g., if one could establish that a physical assault has not taken place during a homicide, it should be a sufficient condition (with probability 1) to establish that the homicide has not been committed due to a property-related dispute. Thus, this paper shows that causal discovery algorithms can be helpful in generating legal arguments, opening up avenues for promising future endeavors.

We focus on the problem of generating high-quality, private synthetic glucose1 traces, a task generalizable to many other time series sources. Existing methods for2 time series data synthesis, such as those using Generative Adversarial Networks3 (GANs), are not able to capture the innate characteristics of glucose data and cannot4 provide any formal privacy guarantees without severely degrading the utility of the5 synthetic data. In this paper we present GlucoSynth, a novel privacy-preserving6 GAN framework to generate synthetic glucose traces. The core intuition behind our7 approach is to conserve relationships amongst motifs (glucose events) within the8 traces, in addition to temporal dynamics. Our framework incorporates differential9 privacy mechanisms to provide strong formal privacy guarantees.

How do you go about integrating causal knowledge into decision systems or agents? We sat down with Matteo Ceriscioli to find out about his research in this space. This interview is the latest in our series featuring the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants. Could you start by telling us a bit about your PhD - where are you studying, and what's the broad topic of your research? The idea is to integrate causal knowledge into agents or decision systems to make them more reliable.

Video causal reasoning aims to achieve a high-level understanding of video content from a causal perspective. However, current video reasoning tasks are limited in scope, primarily executed in a question-answering paradigm and focusing on short videos containing only a single event and simple causal relationships, lacking comprehensive and structured causality analysis for videos with multiple events. To fill this gap, we introduce a new task and dataset, Multi-Event Causal Discovery (MECD). It aims to uncover the causal relationships between events distributed chronologically across long videos. Given visual segments and textual descriptions of events, MECD requires identifying the causal associations between these events to derive a comprehensive, structured event-level video causal diagram explaining why and how the final result event occurred. To address MECD, we devise a novel framework inspired by the Granger Causality method, using an efficient mask-based event prediction model to perform an Event Granger Test, which estimates causality by comparing the predicted result event when premise events are masked versus unmasked. Furthermore, we integrate causal inference techniques such as front-door adjustment and counterfactual inference to address challenges in MECD like causality confounding and illusory causality.

The TSCI approach is model-agnostic and can be used as a drop-in replacement for CCM and its generalizations.

However, current evidence indicates the contrary.

Understanding the intricate motivations behind human actions is paramount in developing sophisticated systems capable of nuanced behavior analysis.

Our focus in this paper is to solve causal inference problems using only observational data and (potentially partial) knowledge on the causal graph of the underlying structural causal model (SCM).