Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Gradient-based Causal Discovery Framework with Applications to Complex Industrial Processes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single MLP trained to forecast every time series, with $\ell_1$-regularized input-output gradients and phase-randomized surrogate testing, reconstructs directed causal graphs more accurately and at lower cost than component-wise neural…

desk verdict A practical single-model gradient-based causal discovery method with strong empirical results, but the core gradient-as-causality assumption is unproven and the paper needs major cleanup before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11178 v3 pith:HMK6O26L submitted 2025-07-15 cs.LG cs.AI

Meiliang Liu , Huiwen Dong , Xiaoxiao Yang , Yunfang Xu , Mingbao Yang , Zijin Li , Zhengye Si , Xinyue Yang
show 1 more author
Zhiwen Zhao
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords CausaldiscoveryGrangercausalityGradient-basedTimeseriesIndustrialprocessℓ1regularizationSurrogatesignificancetestLightweightmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces GCD, a causal discovery method that infers Granger causality from multivariate time series using just one neural network. Instead of building a separate model for each variable and reading causality from first-layer weights, GCD trains a single MLP to predict all variables and measures how sensitive each predicted output is to each past input. These sensitivities, expressed as time-averaged absolute gradients, are forced toward sparsity with $\ell_1$ regularization, and a phase-randomization surrogate test with false-discovery-rate correction decides which edges survive. On Lorenz-96, DREAM4, CausalTime, and three industrial process datasets, the paper reports higher AUROC/AUPRC or F1/SHD than seven baselines while using fewer parameters and less training time. If this gradient proxy is trustworthy, the framework offers a lightweight route to causal discovery in sensor-rich industrial settings.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gradient matrix $GC_{i,j}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{\tau=1}^{k}|\partial s_i/\partial x_{t-\tau,j}|$, computed from a single MLP $f_\theta$ that maps the past $k$ lags of all $D$ series to predictions of all $D$ series in one forward pass. The paper sums each output's predictions over time into the scalar $s_i$, backpropagates to the input window, takes element-wise absolute values, and averages over lags, turning the $k\times D$ sensitivity matrix into a $D\times D$ causal-strength matrix. This gradient quantity replaces the first-layer weight magnitudes used by component-wise models. The other load-bearing component is the PSST module: fast Fourier transform phase randomization generates surrogate time series, the model is retrained on each surrogate, edge-wise empirical null distributions are built from the resulting causal matrices, and Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction at $\alpha=0.05$ decides which edges survive. The $\ell_1$ penalty $\lambda\|GC\|_1$ is added to the mean-squared prediction loss so the final causal matrix is sparse.

What would settle it

Simulate a bivariate time series in which $y_t$ is a deterministic step function of $x_{t-1}$ plus noise, such as $y_t = \mathrm{sign}(x_{t-1}) + \varepsilon_t$, so $x$ genuinely Granger-causes $y$ but the derivative of the map is zero almost everywhere. Train GCD on samples whose $x$ values fall away from the jump points; if the discovered matrix omits the $x\to y$ edge while a standard Granger test or a component-wise baseline recovers it, the gradient proxy as a general causal measure is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the time-averaged absolute input-output gradient of a single shared forecaster, after $\ell_1$ shrinkage and surrogate-based significance testing, is a reliable and cheap way to reconstruct directed causal graphs from multivariate time series. The paper defines the causal strength from source series $j$ to target series $i$ as $$GC_{i,j} = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{\tau=1}^{k}\left|\frac{\partial s_i}{\partial x_{t-\tau,j}}\right|,$$ where $s_i = \sum_{t=k+1}^{T} \hat{x}_{t,i}$ is the sum of the MLP's predictions for series $i$ over all time steps. A large gradient magnitude is interpreted as evidence that perturbing the past of $j$ changes the prediction of $i$, i.e., Granger causality; a near-zero gradient means no causal link. The $\ell_1$ penalty $\lambda\|GC\|_1$ added to the prediction loss sparsifies the matrix, and the Phase-randomization Surrogate Statistical Test (PSST) removes edges whose strength is not significantly above what phase-randomized surrogates produce, after Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery-rate correction. On this basis the paper reports that GCD outperforms cMLP, cLSTM, TCDF, eSRU, GVAR, CR-VAE, and CUTS+ on Lorenz-96, DREAM4, and CausalTime, and achieves the best or near-best structural metrics on the Tennessee-Eastman, Ultra-processed Food, and Debutanizer industrial datasets with fewer parameters and less training time.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only if the size of a trained neural network's time-averaged sensitivity to each past input faithfully tracks whether one series truly helps predict another; the paper argues this by intuition, not by proof, so if the real process is badly approximated by the network or its effects are locally flat, the sensitivity measure can miss or invent causal links.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because GCD uses a single shared forecaster rather than one model per variable, causal discovery no longer scales linearly with series count; the reported complexity is $O(e(N+1)\sum_{l}H_lH_{l+1}) + D^2$, which is lower than component-wise alternatives when $D > N+1$.
  • The PSST threshold turns the dense gradient matrix into a sparse graph by zeroing edges whose strength is not distinguishable from phase-randomized noise, giving industrial users a principled way to suppress false positives.
  • On the three industrial processes, GCD reports the lowest SHD on all three and the highest F1 on two of three, indicating the gradient proxy transfers beyond smooth simulation systems to sensor data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The abstract's mention of KAN, MLP, and LSTM implies the authors intend the gradient-loss recipe to be architecture-agnostic; if that generality holds, the same approach could extend to recurrent or attention-based forecasters, which the full text does not test.
  • Because PSST retrains the model on each of the $N$ surrogates, the total training cost is $N+1$ runs; a cheaper variant might reuse one trained model with phase-randomized inputs, but the paper does not propose that.
  • The fixed maximum lag $k$ is a free parameter the paper does not optimize; running GCD with several lag windows and combining the resulting matrices would be a direct stress test of whether the gradient proxy is stable across horizons.
  • If the gradient proxy fails on locally flat causal maps (as in the step-function falsifier), the method's reliability will depend on smoothness of the generating process; the paper's benchmarks are smooth dynamical systems and regulatory networks, so this boundary is not probed by its experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Gradient-based Causal Discovery (GCD), a framework that trains a single MLP forecaster on multivariate time series and uses the time-averaged absolute input-output gradient, regularized with an L1 penalty and thresholded by a phase-randomization surrogate test, as a measure of Granger causality. The method is evaluated against cMLP, cLSTM, TCDF, eSRU, GVAR, CR-VAE, and CUTS+ on Lorenz-96, DREAM4, and CausalTime, and on three industrial datasets (Tennessee-Eastman, Ultra-processed Food, Debutanizer). The central claims are that a single shared forecaster with gradient-based L1 regularization recovers directed causal structure more accurately than component-wise neural Granger methods, and that this is achieved with substantially lower computational overhead.

Significance. If the core identification is valid, GCD offers a practically meaningful advance: replacing D component-wise models with a single MLP and extracting causal structure from input-output gradients rather than first-layer weights could reduce cost in high-dimensional industrial monitoring and is architecture-flexible. The empirical evaluation is broad, covering synthetic, benchmark, and industrial settings, and the paper includes ablations of the surrogate statistical test and an explicit complexity analysis. However, the load-bearing link between gradient magnitude and Granger non-causality is assumed rather than derived, and several performance tables lack uncertainty estimates. The strength of the contribution therefore depends on additional theoretical support and tightened experimental reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sections IV and V] The abstract claims experiments on DREAM, Lorenz-96, fMRI BOLD, and CausalTime and on real-world DNA, Yeast, HeLa, and bladder urothelial carcinoma datasets. Sections IV and V do not report any fMRI BOLD, DNA, Yeast, HeLa, or bladder urothelial carcinoma experiments. This mismatch is load-bearing because the abstract advertises empirical support that the manuscript does not contain; it must be resolved either by adding the missing experiments or by correcting the abstract.
  2. [Section III.B, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The central identification of GC_{i,j} = (1/k) sum_tau |g^i_{tau,j}| with Granger causality is asserted by intuition, not derived. Granger non-causality is a predictive conditional-independence condition, while a time-averaged local input-output gradient is a sensitivity measure. The two can disagree: for a process with x2,t = 0.8 x2,t-1 + eps2,t and x1,t = 1{x2,t-1 > 0.9} + eps1,t, x2 strictly Granger-causes x1 under the paper's own definition, but a ReLU MLP approximating the threshold has zero input-output gradient on almost all training points, so the time-averaged absolute gradient and the PSST test can fail to recover the edge. Since the paper motivates GCD for industrial processes where saturation, switching, and threshold effects are common, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either state and prove sufficient smoothness/coverage conditions under which the gradient proxy is faithful, or provide direct empirical evidence on non-smooth benchmark processes.
  3. [Tables II, IV, V, VI] The DREAM4 results in Table II and the industrial-process results in Tables IV, V, and VI are reported as single point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated runs. The claim that GCD 'consistently achieves' the best performance on DREAM4 and the three industrial datasets is therefore not statistically supported. Please provide variance estimates over multiple random seeds, or formal significance tests against the closest baselines, for these tables.
  4. [Section V.D, Tables VII and VIII] The complexity comparison in Table VII depends on the number of surrogate datasets N through the term O(e(N+1) sum H_l H_l+1) + D^2, and the argument that GCD is cheaper than cMLP relies on D > N+1. The value of N used in the reported experiments is not given in the main text, only deferred to the Supplementary Materials. Please report the actual N and the resulting effective multiplier for each dataset, so that the efficiency claim in Table VIII can be checked against a fair common training budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (2)-(3)] In Eq. (2), W1 is declared in R^{H x D} while the input x_{t-k:t-1,1:D} is a k x D matrix, so the dimensions are inconsistent unless the input is flattened; please clarify the reshaping. In Eq. (3), the predicted loss compares xhat_{t,1:D} to x_{t-k:t-1,1:D}, which appears to be a typo for the target x_{t,1:D}.
  2. [Table VII] The cMLP complexity in Table VII is listed as O(eD sum H_l H_l+1) with no factor of T, whereas all other component-wise models include a factor of T in their complexity. If the training procedure iterates over T time steps, the cMLP term should also include T.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'in constract' in Section V.A, 'DE process process' in the caption of Table VI, and 'the search space for causal variance becomes broader' in the Introduction. These should be corrected.
  4. [References] Reference [1], on regioselective hydroformylation of propene, does not appear to support the opening sentence about large-scale multi-source industrial data; please verify that the citation is appropriate or replace it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular step found; the sole self-citation is contextual and non-load-bearing, so the score reflects the rubric's minor-self-citation anchor rather than any reduction of the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

GCD's claimed derivation is self-contained against the external benchmarks. The causal matrix GC is defined in Eq. (7) as the time-averaged absolute input-output gradient of a single MLP forecaster, and the L1 penalty in Eq. (8) is applied directly to that matrix during training. This is the mechanism being tested, not a fit to ground truth: the ground-truth graphs are used only for evaluation (Tables I-VI), not in the loss or in the construction of GC. The PSST surrogate test (Eqs. (10)-(17)) builds an empirical null from phase-randomized copies of the data and thresholds GC, which is again an inference procedure rather than a circular definition. The gradient-to-Granger proxy in Section III.B is an assumption with no supporting theorem; that is a correctness/validity limitation (and the paper's weakest point), not a circularity. The only self-citation is reference [7], used to illustrate neuroimaging applications of Granger causality; it plays no role in the derivation, does not justify any uniqueness claim, and is not load-bearing. Because the rubric assigns 2 to a minor non-load-bearing self-citation, the score is 2 even though no actual circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several domain assumptions rather than a formal derivation: gradients are treated as causal evidence, the process is assumed to be an additive-noise nonlinear autoregression, and phase-randomized surrogates are assumed to produce a valid null. The main free parameters are standard hyperparameters, but none of their final values are reported in the preprint. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • λ (L1 regularization strength) = not reported; searched in [1e-3, 1e-1]
    Controls sparsity of the causal matrix; the final value is deferred to missing supplementary materials.
  • learning rate lr = not reported; searched in [1e-3, 1e-1]
    Training hyperparameter; sensitivity analysis shows stable but performance varies at extremes.
  • maximum time lag k = not reported
    Determines the input window and the number of gradient entries averaged in Eq. (7); no selection procedure described.
  • hidden layer size H = not reported
    MLP width; affects expressiveness and gradient behavior; not specified.
  • number of surrogate datasets N = not reported
    Defines the empirical null distributions in Eq. (15); also multiplies training cost by N+1.
  • significance level α = 0.05
    Threshold for FDR-adjusted p-values in Eq. (17); standard choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gradient magnitude of a trained forecaster identifies Granger causality.
    Section III.B states this as intuition ('The intuition behind gradient-based causal discovery...'), with no formal equivalence proven between nonzero gradients and Granger non-causality under the assumed data-generating process.
  • domain assumption The true process follows a nonlinear autoregressive model with additive independent noise and finite lag k.
    Eq. (1) assumes x_{t,i} = f_i(x_{t-k:t-1}) + e_{t,i} with independent noise; the architecture approximates f_i with a single MLP.
  • domain assumption Phase-randomized surrogates provide a valid null distribution for the absence of Granger causality.
    Section III.C constructs nulls by randomizing phases of each univariate series while preserving amplitude spectra; this assumes that destroying cross-variable phase relationships removes causal coupling without changing marginal properties.
  • domain assumption The MLP training with L1 gradient penalty yields a good enough predictor for the gradient to be informative.
    The method depends on the trained model's gradients; if the model underfits or the loss in Eq. (3) is mis-specified, the gradients may not reflect predictive relevance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Gradient-based Causal Discovery Framework with Applications to Complex Industrial Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMK6O26L

@misc{pith2026250711178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Gradient-based Causal Discovery Framework with Applications to Complex Industrial Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMK6O26L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11178}
}
abstract

With the advancement of deep learning technologies, various neural network-based Granger causality models have been proposed. Although these models have demonstrated notable improvements, several limitations remain. Most existing approaches adopt the component-wise architecture, necessitating the construction of a separate model for each time series, which results in substantial computational costs. In addition, imposing the sparsity-inducing penalty on the first-layer weights of the neural network to extract causal relationships weakens the model's ability to capture complex interactions. To address these limitations, we propose Gradient Regularization-based Neural Granger Causality (GRNGC), which requires only one time series prediction model and applies $L_{1}$ regularization to the gradient between model's input and output to infer Granger causality. Moreover, GRNGC is not tied to a specific time series forecasting model and can be implemented with diverse architectures such as KAN, MLP, and LSTM, offering enhanced flexibility. Numerical simulations on DREAM, Lorenz-96, fMRI BOLD, and CausalTime show that GRNGC outperforms existing baselines and significantly reduces computational overhead. Meanwhile, experiments on real-world DNA, Yeast, HeLa, and bladder urothelial carcinoma datasets further validate the model's effectiveness in reconstructing gene regulatory networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) The component-wise architecture proposed by Tank et al. [8], which required [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The causal discovery results of each model on UF dataset. (a) Ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The causal discovery results of each model on TE dataset. (a) Ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The causal discovery results of each model on the Debutanizer dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hyperparameter tuning results. (a) TE. (b) UF. (c) DE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study results on numerical simulation (Lorenz-96, DREAM4, Medical) and industrial process (TE, UF, DE) datasets. (a) AUROC (numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SFNet: A Spatial-Frequency Domain Deep Learning Network for Efficient Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis

    eess.IV 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SFNet fuses a 3D DenseNet with a global Fourier filter module and multi-scale attention to classify Alzheimer's disease from structural MRI, reporting 95.1% AD vs CN accuracy on ADNI.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    Jacobian regularizer- based neural granger causality,

    W. Zhou, S. Bai, S. Yu, Q. Zhao, and B. Chen, “Jacobian regularizer- based neural granger causality,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2024, pp. 61 763–61 782

    work page 2024

  2. [11]

    Granger causality using jacobian in neural networks,

    S. Suryadi, L. Y . Chew, and Y .-S. Ong, “Granger causality using jacobian in neural networks,”Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 33, no. 2, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Regioselective hydroformylation of propene catalysed by rhodium-zeolite,

    X. Zhang, T. Yan, H. Hou, J. Yin, H. Wan, X. Sun, Q. Zhang, F. Sun, Y . Wei, M. Donget al., “Regioselective hydroformylation of propene catalysed by rhodium-zeolite,”Nature, vol. 629, no. 8012, pp. 597–602, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Causal-trivial attention graph neural network for fault diagnosis of complex industrial processes,

    H. Wang, R. Liu, S. X. Ding, Q. Hu, Z. Li, and H. Zhou, “Causal-trivial attention graph neural network for fault diagnosis of complex industrial processes,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1987–1996, 2023

    work page 1987

  5. [3]

    Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods,

    C. W. Granger, “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods,”Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 424–438, 1969. 10

    work page 1969

  6. [4]

    An integrated distributed fault diagnosis framework for large-scale industrial processes based on spatio–temporal causal analysis,

    D. Hua, J. Dong, K. Peng, and S. Simani, “An integrated distributed fault diagnosis framework for large-scale industrial processes based on spatio–temporal causal analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [5]

    Attribution-aided non- linear granger causality discovery method and its industrial application,

    Q. Sui, Y . Wang, C. Liu, K. Wang, and B. Sun, “Attribution-aided non- linear granger causality discovery method and its industrial application,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [6]

    Causal inference for time series,

    J. Runge, A. Gerhardus, G. Varando, V . Eyring, and G. Camps-Valls, “Causal inference for time series,”Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 487–505, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [7]

    A spatiotemporal causal model for revealing developmen- tal changes in infants’ brain effective connectivity networks during the first year of life,

    M. Liu, C. Yu, X. Yang, Y . Xu, H. Dong, Z. Li, Z. Si, X. Yang, J. Huang, Z. Shiet al., “A spatiotemporal causal model for revealing developmen- tal changes in infants’ brain effective connectivity networks during the first year of life,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Enginee...

    2025

  2. [8]

    Neural granger causality,

    A. Tank, I. Covert, N. Foti, A. Shojaie, and E. B. Fox, “Neural granger causality,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 4267–4279, 2022

    2022

  3. [9]

    Economy statistical recurrent units for inferring nonlinear granger causality,

    S. Khanna and V . Y . Tan, “Economy statistical recurrent units for inferring nonlinear granger causality,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  4. [10]

    Cuts: Neural causal discovery from irregular time-series data,

    Y . Cheng, R. Yang, T. Xiao, Z. Li, J. Suo, K. He, and Q. Dai, “Cuts: Neural causal discovery from irregular time-series data,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Cuts+: High- dimensional causal discovery from irregular time-series,

    Y . Cheng, L. Li, T. Xiao, Z. Li, J. Suo, K. He, and Q. Dai, “Cuts+: High- dimensional causal discovery from irregular time-series,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, 2024, pp. 11 525–11 533

    2024

  6. [13]

    Neural additive vector autoregres- sion models for causal discovery in time series,

    B. Bussmann, J. Nys, and S. Latr ´e, “Neural additive vector autoregres- sion models for causal discovery in time series,” inDiscovery Science: 24th International Conference, DS 2021, Halifax, NS, Canada, October 11–13, 2021, Proceedings 24. Springer, 2021, pp. 446–460

    2021

  7. [14]

    Causal discovery with attention- based convolutional neural networks,

    M. Nauta, D. Bucur, and C. Seifert, “Causal discovery with attention- based convolutional neural networks,”Machine Learning and Knowl- edge Extraction, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 19, 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    Interpretable models for granger causal- ity using self-explaining neural networks,

    R. Marcinkevi ˇcs and J. E. V ogt, “Interpretable models for granger causal- ity using self-explaining neural networks,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021). OpenReview, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Causal recurrent variational autoencoder for medical time series generation,

    H. Li, S. Yu, and J. Principe, “Causal recurrent variational autoencoder for medical time series generation,” inProceedings of the AAAI confer- ence on artificial intelligence, vol. 37, 2023, pp. 8562–8570

    2023

  10. [17]

    An information- theoretic approach for heterogeneous differentiable causal discovery,

    W. Zhou, S. Bai, Y . Xie, Y . He, Q. Zhao, and B. Chen, “An information- theoretic approach for heterogeneous differentiable causal discovery,” Neural Networks, vol. 188, p. 107417, 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Causality detection with matrix-based transfer entropy,

    W. Zhou, S. Yu, and B. Chen, “Causality detection with matrix-based transfer entropy,”Information Sciences, vol. 613, pp. 357–375, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Surrogates with random fourier phases,

    C. R ¨ath and R. Monetti, “Surrogates with random fourier phases,” in Topics on chaotic systems: selected papers from chaos 2008 interna- tional conference. World Scientific, 2009, pp. 274–285

    2008

  13. [20]

    Detection of the number of signals using the benjamini-hochberg procedure,

    P.-J. Chung, J. F. Bohme, C. F. Mecklenbrauker, and A. O. Hero, “Detection of the number of signals using the benjamini-hochberg procedure,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2497–2508, 2007

    2007

  14. [21]

    Dream3: network inference using dynamic context likelihood of relatedness and the inferelator,

    A. Madar, A. Greenfield, E. Vanden-Eijnden, and R. Bonneau, “Dream3: network inference using dynamic context likelihood of relatedness and the inferelator,”PloS one, vol. 5, no. 3, p. e9803, 2010

    2010

  15. [22]

    Extensive chaos in the lorenz-96 model,

    A. Karimi and M. R. Paul, “Extensive chaos in the lorenz-96 model,” Chaos: An interdisciplinary journal of nonlinear science, vol. 20, no. 4, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Causaltime: Realistically generated time-series for benchmarking of causal discov- ery,

    Y . Cheng, Z. Wang, T. Xiao, Q. Zhong, J. Suo, and K. He, “Causaltime: Realistically generated time-series for benchmarking of causal discov- ery,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Base control for the tennessee eastman problem,

    T. McAvoy and N. Ye, “Base control for the tennessee eastman problem,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 383–413, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Cipcad-bench: Continuous industrial process datasets for benchmarking causal discovery methods,

    G. Menegozzo, D. Dall’Alba, and P. Fiorini, “Cipcad-bench: Continuous industrial process datasets for benchmarking causal discovery methods,” in2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2124–2131

    2022

  19. [27]

    Soft sensors for product quality monitoring in debutanizer distillation columns,

    L. Fortuna, S. Graziani, and M. G. Xibilia, “Soft sensors for product quality monitoring in debutanizer distillation columns,”Control Engi- neering Practice, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 499–508, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.