Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

MOCHA: Discovering Multi-Order Dynamic Causality in Temporal Point Processes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling indirect multi-hop causal paths over a time-varying DAG improves event modeling and reveals interpretable structures.

desk verdict Genuinely new multi-hop causal TPP architecture, but Eq. (5)-(6) leave intermediate timestamps undefined, so the central mechanism is not actually computable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18873 v1 pith:4YC4BLJO submitted 2025-08-26 cs.LG

Yunyang Cao , Juekai Lin , Wenhao Li , Bo Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords temporalpointprocessescausaldiscoverymulti-ordercausalitydynamicDAGHawkesprocesseventsequencemodelinginterpretablemachinelearningneural
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

MOCHA sets out to show that event sequences are better explained when influences can travel along multi-hop chains of event types, not just direct pairwise links. It builds a time-varying directed acyclic graph over event types, learns dynamic edge weights from event histories, and lets the conditional intensity of each type accumulate contributions from all causal paths up to length L. On seven real-world datasets, including four clinical event datasets, it reports the lowest negative log-likelihood among the compared neural temporal point process models. It also reports high matching rates with clinically established causal paths leading to acute kidney injury, and identifies a new multi-step path that later clinical literature supports. The intended consequence is that causal structure and predictive accuracy can be learned jointly rather than traded off.

What carries the argument

The central object is a time-varying weighted DAG over event types. Its edge weights are generated by a graph attention network that attends over embeddings of event types and their elapsed times since last occurrence, and its influence kernel is a learned MLP-based decay. Higher-order influence along a length-l path is the product of edge weights and decays along the path, so the multi-order intensity is base intensity plus weighted sums of these path products. A continuous acyclicity constraint h(W_t) = Tr(exp(|W_t|∘|W_t|)) - K = 0 keeps every snapshot acyclic, which guarantees the longest path is at most K-1 and makes the hierarchy finite.

What would settle it

Take synthetic event sequences generated by a multivariate Hawkes process with known first-order-only kernels, and fit MOCHA alongside a version with L=1. If the multi-order version has lower held-out negative log-likelihood, or if its learned graph contains paths of length greater than one, the multi-order claim is falsified; true first-order data should not reward longer paths.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the total influence of one event type on another is not exhausted by direct excitation; it propagates as products of dynamic edge weights and time-decay kernels along multi-hop paths in a latent time-varying DAG. MOCHA makes this claim concrete by defining an l-th-order intensity that sums, over all past events and all length-l type paths, the product of edge weights and decay factors along the path. Dynamic edge weights come from a graph attention network fed with sinusoidal recency embeddings and learnable type embeddings, and a differentiable acyclicity constraint keeps the graph acyclic, bounding the maximum order by K-1. The paper reports that this model attain

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an influence can travel along a chain of event types even when the intermediate events in the chain never actually occur in the observed sequence, and that the strength of that influence can be computed from times that the model never specifies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, neural TPPs should stop treating pairwise kernels as complete; indirect chains are a separate, identifiable component of the intensity.
  • Dynamic edge weights mean the causal graph can be queried at each event time, so the output is a time-stamped structure, not a single static graph.
  • The path-matching results imply that early-warning systems could use learned multi-hop paths as risk markers before the terminal event, not just at it.
  • The framework gives a template for imposing acyclicity on any recurrent or attention-based point process without sacrificing end-to-end differentiability.
  • Because the model generalizes the Hawkes kernel to a path product, it inherits the interpretability of Hawkes-type models while widening the class of dependencies they can express.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The path-product formula is not a self-contained generative model: it multiplies decay kernels at intermediate times that are never defined, and the intensity sum runs over type-level paths rather than over actual intermediate events. A fully grounded version would need latent event times or a sum over observed intermediate events; without that, the multi-order intensity is not computable as writt
  • If the likelihood gains survive a synthetic test with known first-order-only dynamics, they would demonstrate genuine higher-order discovery; if not, the gains may come from extra capacity in the dynamic weights and decay rather than from multi-order paths.
  • The path matching rate checks edge presence in the learned DAG, not temporal precedence in the data, so it measures consistency with clinical knowledge rather than proof that the model found the true causal mechanism.
  • The recency embeddings tied to last occurrence times make the graph state depend on the most recent event of each type; a fuller history representation could change which edges appear, so the discovered graphs are history-summary-dependent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOCHA, a neural temporal point process (TPP) model that claims to discover multi-order dynamic causal structure. The intensity of each event type is expressed as a sum of first-order and higher-order terms, where higher-order influences are propagated along paths in a time-varying DAG with learned structural weights and learned decay kernels. The DAG is regularized with continuous acyclicity and sparsity penalties, and training is end-to-end via negative log-likelihood. Experiments on seven real-world datasets (four clinical, three social) report state-of-the-art negative log-likelihood, an ablation study, and recovery of known clinical causal paths for AKI. The main claim is that explicitly modeling multi-hop dynamic causality improves both prediction and interpretability.

Significance. If the proposed formulation were rigorously defined and the empirical claims held, the paper would make a useful contribution to interpretable TPP modeling: jointly learning time-varying DAGs and using path-based influence is a natural and potentially valuable extension of Hawkes-type processes. The authors also connect to external clinical ground truth for path recovery, which is a positive step beyond purely predictive evaluation. However, the central mathematical object—the multi-order intensity in Eqs. (5)–(6)—is not well defined, and the experimental evidence lacks elementary statistical safeguards. As written, the paper's main claims are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. The l-th order path influence Φ_π^(l)(t − t0) in Eq. (5) is defined over a path (t0, k0) → (t1, k1) → ... → (tl, kl) with (tl, kl) = (t, k), but the intermediate timestamps t1, ..., t_{l−1} are never defined. Eq. (6) then sums over observed starting events (ti, ki) and type-level paths π ∈ P_l(k_i → k), but there is no sum over intermediate event times. If one sets all intermediate t_r = t_i, then κ(0) = 0 (as defined in §IV-A2), making every l ≥ 2 contribution vanish. If one instead intends to use observed event times, Eq. (6) is missing the combinatorial summation over those times. Furthermore, the structural weight w is defined in §IV-A1 as a function of current time t (W_t[u,v] = w_{u→v}(t)), yet Eq. (5) evaluates it at t_r − t_{r−1}, an inconsistent argument. Consequently, λ_k^(l)(t|H_t) is not a well-defined function of the history, and the reported NLL improvements in Tables I–II
  2. NLL values are reported as point estimates with no error bars, repeated-seed standard deviations, or statistical significance tests. Differences such as CAD 0.69 vs. 1.81 and TB −0.36 vs. previous 0.74 are large, but without variance estimates we cannot rule out run-to-run or initialization artifacts. The claim of consistent SOTA across all seven datasets is therefore not established. At minimum, the paper should report mean ± std over multiple seeds and a paired significance test.
  3. The causal path recovery evaluation reports matching rates against a set of clinically known paths, but it provides no comparison to other causal discovery baselines, nor to a simple baseline that reads off transitive closures of the learned first-order DAG. The average first-order matching rate is 92.10%, while higher-order path matching appears to vary widely (e.g., one third-order path at 99.39%, but others are lower in Figure 3). Without such comparisons, it is unclear whether the path matching results reflect genuine multi-order causal learning or simply direct edges that happen to cover the selected paths. Also, the theoretical maximum matching rate is said to be below 100% due to patient subgroups, but no null model is given to calibrate the reported rates.
  4. The manuscript asserts causal validity primarily from the DAG constraint and the SCM framing, but the learned graph is a prediction model with a sparsity/acyclicity penalty, not a result of identifiable causal discovery from interventional or counterfactual data. The external validation in RQ3 is independent and is a strength, but the broader claim that MOCHA 'reveals meaningful and interpretable causal structures' goes beyond what the experiments support. The paper should either temper the causal language or add a formal identifiability discussion. This concern is secondary to the definitional gap in Eqs. (5)–(6), but it affects the interpretation of the results.
minor comments (5)
  1. No dataset statistics (number of sequences, event types, event counts, time horizon) are provided. This makes the reported NLL values difficult to interpret and reproduce.
  2. The text says RMSE and type accuracy are 'shown in the supplementary materials,' but the submission appears to have no supplementary material. Either include those results or remove the reference.
  3. The regularization sums over all N events in each training sequence, which couples the penalty strength to sequence length. The authors should clarify whether this is intended and how γ_acyclic and γ_sparse are chosen across datasets differing in length.
  4. The decay function κ(Δ t) is defined as Sigmoid(MLP(PE(Δ t))), which is bounded between 0 and 1 but is not necessarily monotonically decreasing in Δ t. If the intention is to model fading influence, this should be stated explicitly; otherwise the 'decay' terminology is misleading.
  5. No code or repository is provided. For a paper whose experiments are central to the claims, releasing code and hyperparameter settings would greatly help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the model is self-contained and validated against independent clinical path benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The multi-order intensity (Eqs. 4-7) is defined from learnable structural weights and a decay kernel, and the dynamic causal graph (Eqs. 16-19) is a thresholded/regularized transform of those same learned weights. The paper's causal claims are then evaluated against externally specified clinical causal paths (Fig. 3) that are not used in training, so reading out paths from the fitted W_t is an empirical validation rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The acyclicity and sparsity constraints are regularizers, not imports from a self-citation chain; there is no load-bearing reliance on the authors' own prior results. The main weakness is a mathematical under-specification: Eq. (5) references intermediate timestamps t_1,...,t_{l-1} without defining them, and Eq. (6) sums over type paths rather than event timestamps, making the higher-order intensity not fully computable as written. This is a correctness gap, not a circularity, because the claimed derivation does not reduce to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model adds a latent dynamic DAG and path-based higher-order intensities; the ledger captures the main learned parameters and structural assumptions that carry the result.

free parameters (5)
  • Base intensity mu_k = learned per type
    Eq. (7), not reported in the paper.
  • Order weights alpha_k^(l) = learned per type per order up to L=K-1
    Eq. (7), scales each multi-order intensity contribution.
  • GAT and embedding parameters (W_Q, W_K, a, W_proj, type embeddings) = learned
    Eqs. (9)-(13), the dynamic structural weights are computed from these.
  • Decay MLP parameters (W_FC1, W_FC2, b1, b2) = learned
    Eq. (14), defines the shared time decay kernel.
  • Hyperparameters theta, beta, gamma_acyclic, gamma_sparse = not reported
    Eqs. (16), (18), (19); threshold, activation sharpness, and regularization strengths are all hand-chosen and not listed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Causal dependencies among event types can be represented by a time-varying DAG G_t
    Section IV-B1; no identification or faithfulness argument is given for why the learned graph corresponds to causal relations.
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-order influence propagates along paths in the type-level DAG, with intermediate types acting as carriers even when no events of those types are observed at intermediate times
    Section IV-A, Eqs. (5)-(6); this is the load-bearing modeling choice and is not derived from the TPP likelihood.
  • domain assumption Finite maximum order L=K-1 suffices
    Section IV-A; follows from DAG acyclicity only if the graph is truly acyclic at every time t, which is enforced only by a soft penalty.
  • standard math NOTEARS acyclicity characterization holds for |W_t|
    Section IV-B2, Eq. (17); from Zheng et al. [26], applied here to absolute weights.
  • domain assumption The negative log-likelihood integral can be approximated by the trapezoidal rule
    Section IV-C, Eq. (20); discretization details and step size are not provided.
invented entities (2)
  • Time-evolving latent DAG G_t
    purpose: Encodes which event types directly influence which others at time t; powers of its adjacency define higher-order paths.
    No external prediction; G_t is a fitted latent structure with no falsifiable handle outside the likelihood.
  • Multi-hop causal paths as intensity carriers
    purpose: Defines higher-order intensity contributions without observed intermediate events.
    Eqs. (5)-(6); intermediate events are hypothetical constructs, and their timestamps are left undefined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MOCHA: Discovering Multi-Order Dynamic Causality in Temporal Point Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4YC4BLJO

@misc{pith2026250818873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MOCHA: Discovering Multi-Order Dynamic Causality in Temporal Point Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4YC4BLJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18873}
}
read the original abstract

Discovering complex causal dependencies in temporal point processes (TPPs) is critical for modeling real-world event sequences. Existing methods typically rely on static or first-order causal structures, overlooking the multi-order and time-varying nature of causal relationships. In this paper, we propose MOCHA, a novel framework for discovering multi-order dynamic causality in TPPs. MOCHA characterizes multi-order influences as multi-hop causal paths over a latent time-evolving graph. To model such dynamics, we introduce a time-varying directed acyclic graph (DAG) with learnable structural weights, where acyclicity and sparsity constraints are enforced to ensure structural validity. We design an end-to-end differentiable framework that jointly models causal discovery and TPP dynamics, enabling accurate event prediction and revealing interpretable structures. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that MOCHA not only achieves state-of-the-art performance in event prediction, but also reveals meaningful and interpretable causal structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of an event sequence and its time-varying causal graphs in clinical settings. Multi-order paths capture indirect influences over time. These limitations motivate a core research question: how to model multi-order dynamic causal dependencies. The primary challenge is the representation of multi-order causality, where direct influences alone are insufficient to reflect complex chains of influence. To addr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed framework. The model consists of three key components. This figure illustrates the process from raw input data to multi￾order causal structures and intensity functions at a fixed event timestamp. (1) Dynamic Causal Graph Learner, which encodes event types and time intervals to compute structural weights and temporal decay, and subsequently derives a causal graph (DAG) and an influence matrix… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Matching rate of each clinical causal path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamic causal graphs and multi-order causal paths discovered by MOCHA for an AKI patient. MOCHA captures first-, second-, and third-order causal paths across time. In the final six time steps, the model identifies increasingly complex structures. Notably, in the last …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reliable decision support using counterfactual models,

    P. Schulam and S. Saria, “Reliable decision support using counterfactual models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Hawkes processes in finance,

    E. Bacry, I. Mastromatteo, and J.-F. Muzy, “Hawkes processes in finance,” Market Microstructure and Liquidity , vol. 1, no. 01, p. 1550005, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Causal embeddings for recommendation,

    S. Bonner and F. Vasile, “Causal embeddings for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems , 2018, pp. 104–112

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes,

    A. G. Hawkes, “Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes,” Biometrika, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 83–90, 1971

    1971

  5. [5]

    Transformer hawkes process,

    S. Zuo, H. Jiang, Z. Li, T. Zhao, and H. Zha, “Transformer hawkes process,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 11 692–11 702. 9

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Neural jump-diffusion temporal point processes,

    S. Zhang, C. Zhou, Y . A. Liu, P. Zhang, X. Lin, and Z.-M. Ma, “Neural jump-diffusion temporal point processes,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event history to vector,

    N. Du, H. Dai, R. Trivedi, U. Upadhyay, M. Gomez-Rodriguez, and L. Song, “Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event history to vector,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2016, pp. 1555–1564

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    The neural hawkes process: A neurally self-modulating multivariate point process,

    H. Mei and J. M. Eisner, “The neural hawkes process: A neurally self-modulating multivariate point process,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Self-attentive hawkes process,

    Q. Zhang, A. Lipani, O. Kirnap, and E. Yilmaz, “Self-attentive hawkes process,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 11 183–11 193

    2020

  2. [10]

    Cause: Learning granger causality from event sequences using attribution methods,

    W. Zhang, T. Panum, S. Jha, P. Chalasani, and D. Page, “Cause: Learning granger causality from event sequences using attribution methods,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 11 235–11 245

    2020

  3. [11]

    Dynamic representation learning with temporal point processes for higher-order interaction forecasting,

    T. Gracious and A. Dukkipati, “Dynamic representation learning with temporal point processes for higher-order interaction forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 37, 2023, pp. 7748–7756

    2023

  4. [12]

    Hierarchical contrastive learning for temporal point processes,

    Q. Wang, M. Cheng, S. Yuan, and H. Xu, “Hierarchical contrastive learning for temporal point processes,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, 2023, pp. 10 166–10 174

    2023

  5. [13]

    Interpretable transformer hawkes processes: Unveiling complex interactions in social networks,

    Z. Meng, K. Wan, Y . Huang, Z. Li, Y . Wang, and F. Zhou, “Interpretable transformer hawkes processes: Unveiling complex interactions in social networks,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 2200–2211

    2024

  6. [14]

    Multiple regression analysis of a poisson process,

    D. W. Jorgenson, “Multiple regression analysis of a poisson process,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 56, no. 294, pp. 235–245, 1961

    1961

  7. [15]

    A self-correcting point process,

    V . Isham and M. Westcott, “A self-correcting point process,” Stochastic Processes and Their Applications , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 335–347, 1979

    1979

  8. [16]

    Transformer embeddings of irregularly spaced events and their participants,

    C. Yang, H. Mei, and J. Eisner, “Transformer embeddings of irregularly spaced events and their participants,” in Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    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

    1969

  10. [18]

    Learning granger causality for hawkes processes,

    H. Xu, M. Farajtabar, and H. Zha, “Learning granger causality for hawkes processes,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2016, pp. 1717–1726

    2016

  11. [19]

    Neural temporal point processes for forecasting directional relations in evolving hypergraphs,

    T. Gracious, A. Gupta, and A. Dukkipati, “Neural temporal point processes for forecasting directional relations in evolving hypergraphs,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, 2025, pp. 16 888–16 896

    2025

  12. [20]

    The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,

    P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin, “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,” Biometrika, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 41–55, 1983

    1983

  13. [21]

    Causal inference for event pairs in multivariate point processes,

    T. Gao, D. Subramanian, D. Bhattacharjya, X. Shou, N. Mattei, and K. P. Bennett, “Causal inference for event pairs in multivariate point processes,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 17 311–17 324, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Counterfactual temporal point processes,

    K. Noorbakhsh and M. Rodriguez, “Counterfactual temporal point processes,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 24 810– 24 823, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Counterfactual neural temporal point process for estimating causal influence of misinformation on social media,

    Y . Zhang, D. Cao, and Y . Liu, “Counterfactual neural temporal point process for estimating causal influence of misinformation on social media,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 10 643–10 655, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Spirtes, C

    P. Spirtes, C. N. Glymour, and R. Scheines, Causation, prediction, and search . MIT press, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    A variational autoencoder for neural temporal point processes with dynamic latent graphs,

    S. Yang and H. Zha, “A variational autoencoder for neural temporal point processes with dynamic latent graphs,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, 2024, pp. 16 343–16 351

    2024

  18. [26]

    Dags with no tears: Continuous optimization for structure learning,

    X. Zheng, B. Aragam, P. K. Ravikumar, and E. P. Xing, “Dags with no tears: Continuous optimization for structure learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Dag-gnn: Dag structure learning with graph neural networks,

    Y . Yu, J. Chen, T. Gao, and M. Yu, “Dag-gnn: Dag structure learning with graph neural networks,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2019, pp. 7154–7163

    2019

  20. [28]

    Causalnet: unveiling causal structures on event sequences by topology-informed causal attention,

    H. Zhu, H. Huang, K. Yin, Z. Fan, H. Jin, and B. Liu, “Causalnet: unveiling causal structures on event sequences by topology-informed causal attention,” in Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2024, pp. 7144–7152

    2024

  21. [29]

    Causal discovery in hawkes processes by minimum description length,

    A. Jalaldoust, K. Hlav ´aˇckov´a-Schindler, and C. Plant, “Causal discovery in hawkes processes by minimum description length,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, 2022, pp. 6978–6987

    2022

  22. [30]

    Structural hawkes processes for learning causal structure from discrete-time event sequences,

    J. Qiao, R. Cai, S. Wu, Y . Xiang, K. Zhang, and Z. Hao, “Structural hawkes processes for learning causal structure from discrete-time event sequences,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2023, pp. 5702–5710

    2023

  23. [31]

    Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference , 2nd ed

    J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference , 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Graph attention networks,

    P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li `o, and Y . Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Learning triggering kernels for multi-dimensional hawkes processes,

    K. Zhou, H. Zha, and L. Song, “Learning triggering kernels for multi-dimensional hawkes processes,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2013, pp. 1301–1309

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hypro: A hybridly normalized probabilistic model for long-horizon prediction of event sequences,

    S. Xue, X. Shi, J. Zhang, and H. Mei, “Hypro: A hybridly normalized probabilistic model for long-horizon prediction of event sequences,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, pp. 34 641–34 650, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Snap: A general-purpose network analysis and graph-mining library,

    J. Leskovec and R. Sosi ˇc, “Snap: A general-purpose network analysis and graph-mining library,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    The mimic code repository: Enabling reproducibility in critical care research,

    A. E. W. Johnson, D. J. Stone, L. A. Celi, and T. J. Pollard, “The mimic code repository: Enabling reproducibility in critical care research,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Easytpp: Towards open benchmarking temporal point processes,

    S. Xue, X. Shi, Z. Chu, Y . Wang, H. Hao, F. Zhou, C. Jiang, C. Pan, J. Y . Zhang, Q. Wen, J. Zhou, and H. Mei, “Easytpp: Towards open benchmarking temporal point processes,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kdigo clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury,

    K. Group et al., “Kdigo clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury,” Kidney Int. Suppl. , vol. 2, p. 1, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Predialysis serum lactate levels could predict dialysis withdrawal in type 1 cardiorenal syndrome patients,

    H.-C. Pan, T.-M. Huang, C.-Y . Sun, N.-K. Chou, C.-H. Tsao, F.-Y . Yeh, T.-S. Lai, Y .-M. Chen, and V .-C. Wu, “Predialysis serum lactate levels could predict dialysis withdrawal in type 1 cardiorenal syndrome patients,” EClinicalMedicine, vol. 44, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Lactate level and lactate clearance for acute kidney injury prediction among patients admitted with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective cohort study,

    X. Zhou, Y . He, L. Hu, Q. Zhu, Q. Lin, X. Hong, W. Huang, P. Shan, and D. Liang, “Lactate level and lactate clearance for acute kidney injury prediction among patients admitted with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective cohort study,” Frontiers in cardio...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Prognostic value of serum lactate level for mortality in patients with acute kidney injury,

    M. Chen and D. Lv, “Prognostic value of serum lactate level for mortality in patients with acute kidney injury,” European Journal of Medical Research , vol. 29, no. 1, p. 295, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Lactic acidosis,

    J. A. Kraut and N. E. Madias, “Lactic acidosis,” New England Journal of Medicine , vol. 371, no. 24, pp. 2309–2319, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.