Dynamic Sparse Causal-Attention Temporal Networks for Interpretable Causality Discovery in Multivariate Time Series

Belkacem Chikhaoui; Meriem Zerkouk; Miloud Mihoubi

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Dynamic Sparse Causal-Attention Temporal Networks for Interpretable Causality Discovery in Multivariate Time Series

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DyCAST-Net claims that temporal causal structure in multivariate time series can be recovered from a forecasting network's trained parameters: causal channels come from attention weights plus a shuffle test, and causal delays come from…

desk verdict A plausible hybrid TCN/sparse-attention architecture with external benchmark ground truth, but the delay-estimation claim is unsupported and the empirical evidence lacks variance estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09439 v1 pith:U42ZJPN6 submitted 2025-07-13 cs.LG cs.AIcs.IR

Meriem Zerkouk , Miloud Mihoubi , Belkacem Chikhaoui This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.IR

keywords CausalDiscoveryMultivariateTimeSeriesDilatedConvolutionsSparseAttentionFinancialAnalyticsMarketingImpactAnalysisDelayEstimationTemporalGraph

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

DyCAST-Net is a hybrid neural architecture that tries to establish a direct pipeline from raw multivariate time series to an interpretable directed causal graph, complete with estimated time delays. The paper argues that after training the network for next-step prediction, the model's own parameters carry causal information: channel-level attention weights plus a shuffle test identify which input series matter, and the peaks of dilated convolution filters fix how far back in time each cause acts. On simulated Fama-French financial data and simulated fMRI brain-activity data, the authors report that DyCAST-Net outperforms TCDF, GCFormer, and CausalFormer in F1 score, recall, and delay-estimation accuracy. The payoff, if the claim holds, is causality discovery that does not require controlled interventions and whose results are human-auditable through attention heatmaps and delay-labeled edges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of channel-level attention weighting, dilated depthwise convolutions with causal masking, and the post-hoc reading of parameters. An adaptive threshold zeroes out small attention weights, producing dynamic sparsity that filters spurious connections; RMSNorm and LayerScale stabilize training; and the shuffle test validates each candidate cause by permuting that channel's time points and measuring whether the forecast error worsens. The delay estimator uses the index of the maximum absolute filter weight $k^* = \arg\max_k |w_j[k]|$ times the dilation factor $d$, optionally aggregated across layers, to place each causal edge at a specific lag.

What would settle it

Generate multivariate series from a linear structural model with a known hidden common cause $Z$ driving both $X$ and $Y$ but no direct edge $X\to Y$; if DyCAST-Net's shuffle test still certifies $X\to Y$ because permuting $X$ degrades the forecast through $Z$'s influence, the causal-identification step is falsified. A complementary test: include ground-truth edges with zero delay, since the architecture's causal masking and convolutions only use past values, and check whether those contemporaneous edges are unrecoverable and recall falls measurably.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that temporal causal discovery can be solved by interpreting a trained forecasting model rather than by searching over causal graphs. DyCAST-Net combines dilated temporal convolutions with dynamic sparse multi-head attention; once trained to minimize next-step mean squared error, a channel is declared a cause of the target when its learned attention weight exceeds a threshold and shuffling its values degrades prediction error. The causal delay is then read off as $\arg\max_k |w_j[k]| \times d$ from the convolution filters, and directed edges labeled with those delays form the temporal causal graph. The reported numbers on the two simulated benchmarks are F1 0.91 (finance) and 0.89 (fMRI), recall 0.90 and 0.89, and delay estimation accuracy 0.89, the latter compared with 0.85 for CausalFormer.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 'permuting this channel makes the forecast worse' means 'this channel causes the target,' which silently assumes there are no hidden confounders driving both and no contemporaneous same-time effects, and that the simulated Fama-French and Smith fMRI graphs used as ground truth are complete and correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, one can obtain a temporal causal graph simply by training a forecaster and inspecting its weights, avoiding explicit graph search or intervention experiments.
Delay-labeled edges make the output directly usable for lag-sensitive decisions, such as how many periods before a macroeconomic shock affects a market factor.
Dynamic sparsity plus the shuffle test gives a false-positive filter, which the paper argues matters in noisy environments and high-dimensional settings.
Because the architecture is domain-agnostic, the same pipeline should transfer to other multivariate time series problems, including marketing mix and sensor data.
On the two benchmarks used, the reported numbers (F1 0.91 on finance and 0.89 on fMRI, DEA 0.89) define the comparison point that future causal-discovery models must beat.

Reading between the lines

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

Because causation is identified with predictive importance in a single forecasting model, the discovered graph should be read as mixing direct and mediated influence: permuting a mediator also degrades the forecast, so edges may not isolate direct paths.
The causal reading silently assumes no hidden confounders and no contemporaneous causation, so a natural extension would benchmark DyCAST-Net against conditional-independence methods on synthetic data with a known latent common cause.
The delay estimate's resolution is tied to the dilation schedule and kernel size, so datasets with delays that are not integer multiples of the dilation base may force rounding; testing on continuous-delay ground truth would reveal this limit.
Attention heatmaps could be turned into a quantitative test by checking whether their structure on held-out domains matches known anatomical or economic pathway structure.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: DyCAST-Net is a hybrid TCN-plus-sparse-attention architecture for multivariate time series causal discovery, evaluated on Fama-French and Smith fMRI benchmarks. The specific combination is new, and the authors get credit for benchmarking against external simulated ground truth. But the paper's most distinctive claim—more precise causal delay estimation—rests on an unvalidated heuristic that does not survive scrutiny, and the empirical evidence as presented is too thin to support "consistently outperforms."

What's actually new: the architecture is a recombination of known pieces (dilated causal convolutions, multi-head attention, hard threshold sparsity, RMSNorm/LayerScale, channel weighting, permutation importance). That's not a conceptual advance, but it's a legitimate engineering contribution. The benchmark results on Fama-French and Smith fMRI are new empirical data points, and the paper makes a credible attempt to compare against three relevant baselines (TCDF, GCFormer, CausalFormer). The shuffle test for channel selection is standard but used honestly.

The soft spots are significant. First, the delay estimator in Section 3.3.2 is asserted without derivation: argmax_k |w_j[k]| × d does not map to original time lag in a stacked TCN with residual/skip connections and attention, because later layers see earlier layers' outputs, not raw inputs. Without a derivation or synthetic validation, the DEA numbers in Table 4 are not interpretable. Second, Table 4 reports single point estimates with no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests across the 5-fold protocol—so even the F1 gains cannot be distinguished from noise. Third, the abstract promises marketing datasets and advertising case studies, but the body only reports finance and fMRI; that mismatch, plus two datasets excluded post hoc (one for "lacking causal relationships," one for "processing limitations"), undercuts the generality claims. Fourth, hyperparameters conflict (kernel size 6 in Table 2 vs 4 in Table 3; dilation rate 4 vs 2^l) and no code or data is released, which hurts reproducibility. None of these is a demonstrated fatal error in the core idea, but together they mean the paper is nowhere near "consistently outperforms."

Who is this for? Researchers working on temporal causal discovery with deep learning might find the architecture a useful starting point. But it needs a serious round of revision: derive or validate the delay estimator, add error bars, fix the inconsistencies, and release artifacts.

My recommendation: this deserves peer review, not desk reject, because the underlying idea is plausible and the benchmark setup is sound. But if I were the editor, I'd send it back with major revision required.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DyCAST-Net, a hybrid architecture combining dilated temporal convolutions and dynamic sparse multi-head attention for causal discovery in multivariate time series. It trains one network per target variable, uses channel attention weights and a permutation shuffle test to select candidate causes, and reads off causal delays from the argmax of dilated convolution filter weights. The resulting directed graph is evaluated on Fama-French financial and Smith fMRI simulated benchmarks, where Table 4 reports higher F1, Recall, and Delay Estimation Accuracy (DEA) than TCDF, GCFormer, and CausalFormer. The paper also presents attention heatmaps as interpretable evidence.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, DyCAST-Net would offer a practically useful, interpretable causal discovery tool with sparse attention and explicit delay labeling. The strengths include a plausible architectural combination of TCN and attention, a statistical shuffle test to filter false positives, and evaluation against established simulated ground truth (Fama-French and Smith fMRI). However, the manuscript currently lacks statistical rigor: the headline comparison table reports point estimates with no variance or significance tests, and the delay-estimation step is an unvalidated heuristic in a network with residual connections and nonlinearities. The central SOTA claim therefore rests on an unsupported component. The ideas are worth pursuing, but the manuscript needs additional validation and revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)

[§3.3.2] The delay estimator, delay_{j→target} ≈ argmax_k |w_j[k]| × d, is asserted without derivation or validation. In the stacked DyCAST-Block architecture (§3.2.1) with residual/skip connections, normalization, and nonlinearities, the position of the maximum absolute weight in a late filter does not necessarily correspond to a unique original input lag. The paper provides no synthetic validation of this estimator, and Table 4 reports a single DEA number per model with no error bars. Since every edge in the inferred causal graph is labeled with this delay, the claim of 'more precise estimation of causal delays' (Section 5.1) is unsupported, and even the F1 comparison may be affected if the heuristic has a systematic offset.
[§4.2, Table 4] The 5-fold expanding-window protocol yields five point estimates per metric, yet Table 4 reports single numbers with no standard deviation, confidence interval, or significance test. As a result, the differences between DyCAST-Net and CausalFormer (e.g., F1 0.91 vs 0.87; DEA 0.89 vs 0.85) cannot be assessed for statistical reliability. Additionally, Section 4.1 reports post hoc exclusions of one Finance dataset 'lacking causal relationships' and one fMRI dataset 'due to processing limitations' without pre-registered criteria; this risks selection bias and should be justified explicitly.
[§3.3.1, §3.3.3] The causal interpretation equates predictive importance (channel attention weights and shuffle-test degradation) with causal influence. This identification silently assumes the absence of hidden confounders and contemporaneous correlations. In real-world MTS, such assumptions rarely hold, and the reported F1 and Recall against simulated ground truth may not transfer to real data. The paper should state this assumption explicitly and either evaluate on a benchmark with known confounders or add a discussion of this limitation as a caveat to the causal claims.
[Tables 2 and 3] Hyperparameters are inconsistent: Table 2 reports Kernel Size 6, Dilation Rate 4, and Number of Levels 2, whereas Table 3 reports kernel size 4 and dilations 2^0, 2^1, 2^2. Since the delay estimator multiplies the argmax kernel index by a dilation factor, this ambiguity materially affects the DEA computation and the reproducibility of the results. Also, Table 2's 'Significance Level 0.5' is implausible as a significance level (likely 0.05); please clarify how this value is used in the shuffle test.
[§4.1, §4.4, §4.5] The dataset description is internally inconsistent: Section 4.1 describes 10 Finance datasets and 28 fMRI datasets, but Sections 4.4 and 4.5 refer to 'the Finance dataset consists of 25 time series' and 'fMRI dataset ... sample of 9 time series,' and Figure 3's caption says 'RMFI.' These inconsistencies make it impossible to know which datasets were actually used, how the ground-truth causal graphs were defined, and how the reported metrics aggregate across datasets.

minor comments (6)

[Figure 3] The caption 'Causal relationships in RMFI data' should read 'fMRI data'; 'RMFI' is a typo.
[Abstract] The abstract claims validation on 'marketing datasets,' but the experimental section uses only Finance and fMRI data; no marketing dataset appears in the evaluation.
[§5] The sentence 'Table 3 presents a comparative analysis' refers to the performance comparison table, which is actually numbered Table 4; please update the cross-reference.
[Conclusion] The conclusion mentions 'MGCFORMER' as a compared method, but the correct name is 'GCFormer' throughout the rest of the paper.
[§3.3.2] The phrase 'This can be aggregated if multiple layers contribute' is vague; no aggregation method is specified, so it is unclear how the final delay is computed when multiple layers are used.
[§3.3.3] The 'Remark on Interpretation' says edge values represent the estimated delay or alternatively the confidence/strength derived from attention weights; this ambiguity should be resolved, as the evaluation in Table 4 presumably uses only the delay interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: causal edges and delays are validated against external simulated ground truth; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central causal claims are not derived from the quantities they predict. Channel selection uses the channel-level attention vector alpha and a permutation (shuffle) test to select candidate causes, and the resulting edges are then compared against the Fama-French and Smith fMRI ground-truth graphs (Section 4.1, Table 4). The delay estimate in Section 3.3.2, delay_j->target approximately argmax_k |w_j[k]| * d, is an unproven heuristic read out of learned convolution kernels, but it is not fitted to the ground-truth delays, so the DEA comparison in Section 5 is an external benchmark rather than a reconstruction of the training target. Self-citations (Chikhaoui 2015/2017/2014; Mihoubi 2024) appear only as background motivation in Sections 1-2 and do not supply any load-bearing theorem or fitted value. The main validity concern is conceptual, not circular: equating predictive importance after permutation with causal influence assumes no hidden confounders and contemporaneous correlations, and the delay estimator is asserted without derivation or error bars (Section 3.3.2). These are correctness risks, not cases where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no new physical or ontological entities. The ledger is dominated instead by hand-set thresholds and unspecified hyperparameters that directly control which edges survive into the reported causal graphs: the attention pruning threshold, the shuffle-test significance level, and the candidate-cause threshold all gate the output, yet none has a sensitivity analysis. The claimed LFCM/HFCM fusion modules are named in the contribution list but never implemented or defined in the method section, so they act as unspecified design slots. Two domain assumptions carry the causal interpretation: predictive importance equals causal influence, and the convolution filter peak times the dilation factor equals the true delay. Both are standard in the TCDF family but are assumptions, not derivations.

free parameters (7)

attention pruning threshold tau_sparse = 0.01
Table 3: attention weights below 0.01 are zeroed out; hand-set, no sensitivity analysis, and it directly controls which connections survive.
shuffle-test significance level = 0.5
Table 2 lists 'Significance Level 0.5' as the threshold for determining causal relationships; non-standard (usually 0.05) and permissive, it directly controls which discovered edges are retained.
convolution kernel size = 6 (Table 2) vs 4 (Table 3)
Reported inconsistently across tables; part of the fold-0 Bayesian search, it determines the receptive field that feeds the delay formula.
dilation base = 4 (Table 2) vs 2^l (Table 3)
Controls receptive field growth and therefore the scale of delay estimates in Section 3.3.2.
LayerScale gain gamma = 1e-4
Table 3: hand-set initialization of the LayerScale path, claimed to improve gradient flow without supporting analysis.
L1 regularization weights lambdaK, lambdaM = not reported
Section 3.2.4 introduces them in the loss for sparsity but never states their values.
candidate-cause channel threshold tau = not reported
Section 3.3.1: channels with attention weight above tau are treated as candidate causes; the numeric value is never given.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Shuffle-test predictive degradation identifies genuine causal influence
Section 3.3.1 treats a drop in forecast error after permuting an input channel as evidence of causation; this equates Granger-style predictive relevance with causality and presumes no hidden confounders.
domain assumption Convolution filter peak times dilation equals the true causal delay
Section 3.3.2 sets delay_j_to_target approximately equal to argmax_k |w_j[k]| times d, converting a network weight index into a physical lag without derivation or uncertainty bounds.
domain assumption Fama-French and Smith FMRI simulated causal graphs are correct and complete
Section 4.1 relies on these external benchmarks as ground truth for F1 and DEA, while excluding two of the benchmark datasets from evaluation.
standard math Causal masking in convolutions and attention suffices to make the extracted graph causal
Sections 3.2.1-3.2.2 assume that preventing future information leakage converts predictive relations into causal ones; standard for this method family, but still an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Sparse Causal-Attention Temporal Networks for Interpretable Causality Discovery in Multivariate Time Series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U42ZJPN6

@misc{pith2026250709439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Sparse Causal-Attention Temporal Networks for Interpretable Causality Discovery in Multivariate Time Series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U42ZJPN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09439}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding causal relationships in multivariate time series (MTS) is essential for effective decision-making in fields such as finance and marketing, where complex dependencies and lagged effects challenge conventional analytical approaches. We introduce Dynamic Sparse Causal-Attention Temporal Networks for Interpretable Causality Discovery in MTS (DyCAST-Net), a novel architecture designed to enhance causal discovery by integrating dilated temporal convolutions and dynamic sparse attention mechanisms. DyCAST-Net effectively captures multiscale temporal dependencies through dilated convolutions while leveraging an adaptive thresholding strategy in its attention mechanism to eliminate spurious connections, ensuring both accuracy and interpretability. A statistical shuffle test validation further strengthens robustness by filtering false positives and improving causal inference reliability. Extensive evaluations on financial and marketing datasets demonstrate that DyCAST-Net consistently outperforms existing models such as TCDF, GCFormer, and CausalFormer. The model provides a more precise estimation of causal delays and significantly reduces false discoveries, particularly in noisy environments. Moreover, attention heatmaps offer interpretable insights, uncovering hidden causal patterns such as the mediated effects of advertising on consumer behavior and the influence of macroeconomic indicators on financial markets. Case studies illustrate DyCAST-Net's ability to detect latent mediators and lagged causal factors, making it particularly effective in high-dimensional, dynamic settings. The model's architecture enhanced by RMSNorm stabilization and causal masking ensures scalability and adaptability across diverse application domains

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09439 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Causal relationships in finance data over different epochs (Left: 100, Middle: 300, Right: 2000) The Finance dataset consists of 25 time series, each representing a financial variable. The causal graphs at different epochs (Figures 3 depict the progressive discovery of causal relationships. At 100 epochs, the graph is relatively sparse, indicating that only the most dominant causal relationships are detected. By 300… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Causal relationships in RMFI data over different epochs (Left: 100, Middle: 300, Right: 2000) a comprehensive representation of brain connectivity. The fMRI dataset also consists of sample of 9 time series, representing neural activity measurements. The attention heatmap (Figure reveals patterns of interactions between different brain regions. Higher attention scores (yellow regions) suggest strong causal influence,… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Attention score heat-maps showing variable relationships ((a): Finance dataset, (b): fMRI dataset) 4.6. Comparative Insights The comparative analysis between the Finance and fMRI datasets reveals distinct characteristics in causal structure evolution. The Finance data…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Applied Intelligence, 54, 4911-4934 (2024)

Wu, X., et al.: Causal Inference in the Medical Domain: A Survey. In: Applied Intelligence, 54, 4911-4934 (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2015)

Chikhaoui, B., et al.: A New Granger Causal Model for Influence Evolution in Dynamic Social Networks: The Case of DBLP. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

In: ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 8, 1-28 (2017)

Chikhaoui, B., et al.: Detecting Communities of Authority and Analyzing Their Influence in Dynamic Social Networks. In: ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 8, 1-28 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

In: Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 766-776 (2019)

Nauta, M., et al.: Causal Discovery with Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks. In: Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 766-776 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 6000-6010 (2017)

Vaswani, A., et al.: Attention is All You Need. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 6000-6010 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

In: ICST Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, (2024)

Krishna, K., et al.: Auto imputation enabled deep Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) model for pm2.5 forecasting. In: ICST Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

In: ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02490 (2024)

Jiang, H., et al.: MInference 1.0: Accelerating Pre-filling for Long-Context LLMs Sparse Attention. In: ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02490 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[8]

In: WISE,https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277382252 (2024)

Mihoubi, M., et al.: Discovering Causal Relationships in Noisy Web Data for Sentiment Classifica- tion Using Attention Mechanisms. In: WISE,https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277382252 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 19 references

[9]

Lee, H., et al.: A Training-free Sub-quadratic Cost Transformer Model Serving Framework With Hier- archically Pruned Attention. (2024)

2024
[10]

In: Nature Communi- cations, 10, 2553 (2019)

Runge, J., et al.: Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences. In: Nature Communi- cations, 10, 2553 (2019)

2019
[11]

In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 766-776 (2023)

GÃĳnther, W., et al.: Causal Discovery for Time Series from Multiple Datasets with Latent Contexts. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 766-776 (2023)

2023
[12]

In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 1433-1438 (2023)

Xing, S., et al.: GCFormer: Granger Causality based Attention Mechanism for Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 1433-1438 (2023)

2023
[13]

In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 972-977 (2020)

Chu, Y., et al.: Inductive Granger Causal Modeling for Multivariate Time Series. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 972-977 (2020)

2020
[14]

In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 596-605 (2021)

He, Y., et al.: Daring: Differentiable Causal Discovery with Residual Independence. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 596-605 (2021)

2021
[15]

In: Information Sciences, 285, 204-222 (2014)

Chikhaoui, B., et al.: Pattern-based causal relationships discovery from event sequences for modeling behavioral user profile in ubiquitous environments. In: Information Sciences, 285, 204-222 (2014)

2014
[16]

In: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 37, 102-115 (2024)

Kong, L., et al.: CausalFormer: An Interpretable Transformer for Temporal Causal Discovery. In: IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 37, 102-115 (2024)

2024
[17]

In: ArXiv,https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.02669 (2024)

Wang, R., et al.: Causality-Aware Transformer Networks for Robotic Navigation. In: ArXiv,https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.02669 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[18]

In: Cambridge University Press (2013)

Kleinberg, S.: Causality, Probability, and Time. In: Cambridge University Press (2013)

2013
[19]

In: NeuroImage, 54, 875-891 (2011)

Smith, S.M., et al.: Network modelling methods for FMRI. In: NeuroImage, 54, 875-891 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

In: Applied Intelligence, 54, 4911-4934 (2024)

Wu, X., et al.: Causal Inference in the Medical Domain: A Survey. In: Applied Intelligence, 54, 4911-4934 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [2]

In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2015)

Chikhaoui, B., et al.: A New Granger Causal Model for Influence Evolution in Dynamic Social Networks: The Case of DBLP. In: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

In: ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 8, 1-28 (2017)

Chikhaoui, B., et al.: Detecting Communities of Authority and Analyzing Their Influence in Dynamic Social Networks. In: ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 8, 1-28 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

In: Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 766-776 (2019)

Nauta, M., et al.: Causal Discovery with Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks. In: Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 766-776 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 6000-6010 (2017)

Vaswani, A., et al.: Attention is All You Need. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 6000-6010 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

In: ICST Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, (2024)

Krishna, K., et al.: Auto imputation enabled deep Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN) model for pm2.5 forecasting. In: ICST Transactions on Scalable Information Systems, (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

In: ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02490 (2024)

Jiang, H., et al.: MInference 1.0: Accelerating Pre-filling for Long-Context LLMs Sparse Attention. In: ArXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02490 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

In: WISE,https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277382252 (2024)

Mihoubi, M., et al.: Discovering Causal Relationships in Noisy Web Data for Sentiment Classifica- tion Using Attention Mechanisms. In: WISE,https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:277382252 (2024)

work page 2024