Causal-Audit: A Framework for Risk Assessment of Assumption Violations in Time-Series Causal Discovery

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02488v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 19:43:57 GMT
• Title: Causal-Audit: A Framework for Risk Assessment of Assumption Violations in Time-Series Causal Discovery
• Abstract summary: Causal-Audit is a framework that formalizes assumption validation as calibrated risk assessment.<n>The framework computes effect-size diagnostics across five assumption families.<n>It applies an abstention-aware decision policy that recommends methods only when evidence supports reliable inference.
• Score: 1.7192141121569653
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Time-series causal discovery methods rely on assumptions such as stationarity, regular sampling, and bounded temporal dependence. When these assumptions are violated, structure learning can produce confident but misleading causal graphs without warning. We introduce Causal-Audit, a framework that formalizes assumption validation as calibrated risk assessment. The framework computes effect-size diagnostics across five assumption families (stationarity, irregularity, persistence, nonlinearity, and confounding proxies), aggregates them into four calibrated risk scores with uncertainty intervals, and applies an abstention-aware decision policy that recommends methods (e.g., PCMCI+, VAR-based Granger causality) only when evidence supports reliable inference. The semi-automatic diagnostic stage can also be used independently for structured assumption auditing in individual studies. Evaluation on a synthetic atlas of 500 data-generating processes (DGPs) spanning 10 violation families demonstrates well-calibrated risk scores (AUROC > 0.95), a 62% false positive reduction among recommended datasets, and 78% abstention on severe-violation cases. On 21 external evaluations from TimeGraph (18 categories) and CausalTime (3 domains), recommend-or-abstain decisions are consistent with benchmark specifications in all cases. An open-source implementation of our framework is available.

Related papers

• FinAbstain: Uncertainty-Calibrated Multimodal RAG for Selective Financial Forecasting [8.891247829087936]
  FinAbstain is a framework for uncertainty-calibrated multimodal retrieval-augmented generation with selective prediction.<n>A point-in-time retriever admits only information public at the forecast timestamp and supplies modality-specific evidence to fundamental, news, technical, risk, and verification agents.<n>A controller predicts bullish, bearish, or neutral outcomes only when uncertainty is below a validated threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T07:05:22Z)
• Physically Verifiable Evidence and LLM-Based Reporting for Bearing Fault Diagnosis [6.168311548428149]
  Diagnostic Evidence Network (DENet) is an encoder-agnostic multi-task framework extending the output to a structured evidence record.<n>It incurs no statistically significant accuracy cost, with a frequency error of about 6 Hz on 1,024-point segments.<n>It detects misclassifications with AUROC values of 0.970 and 0.871, and remains discriminative in the high-confidence regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T14:09:16Z)
• When Can Conformal Risk Control Certify LLM Outputs? Bounds, Impossibility, and Adaptation for Structured Generation [0.11280931253550518]
  Large language models (LLMs) deployed for structured generation (NER, extraction, QA, and classification) lack formal reliability guarantees.<n>We characterize when conformal risk control (CRC) can certify structured LLM outputs and when it provably cannot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-27T19:25:07Z)
• RISED: A Pre-Deployment Safety Evaluation Framework for Clinical AI Decision-Support Systems [0.0]
  We propose a five-dimension pre-deployment evaluation covering Reliability, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Equity, and Deployability.<n> RISED is released as an open-source Python package that supplies the quantitative verdicts existing clinical AI reporting standards require.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T02:17:13Z)
• Entropy Alone is Insufficient for Safe Selective Prediction in LLMs [20.664633053172327]
  Selective prediction systems can mitigate harms resulting from language model hallucinations by abstaining from answering in high-risk cases.<n>Uncertainty quantification techniques are often employed to identify such cases, but are rarely evaluated in the context of the wider selective prediction policy.<n>We identify a model-dependent failure mode of entropy-based uncertainty methods that leads to unreliable abstention behaviour, and address it by combining entropy scores with a correctness probe signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-22T11:27:13Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Machine Learning for Stress Testing: Uncertainty Decomposition in Causal Panel Prediction [2.289837306672451]
  Regulatory stress testing requires projecting credit losses under hypothetical macroeconomic scenarios.<n>We propose a framework for policy-path counterfactual inference in panels.<n>We validate all results through simulation and semi-synthetic experiments with real unemployment data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T03:22:38Z)
• CVPL: A Geometric Framework for Post-Hoc Linkage Risk Assessment in Protected Tabular Data [0.0]
  Formal privacy metrics provide compliance-oriented guarantees but often fail to quantify actual linkability in released datasets.<n>CVPL represents linkage analysis as an operator pipeline comprising blocking, vectorization, latent projection, and similarity evaluation.<n> Empirical validation on 10,000 records across 19 configurations demonstrates that formal k-anonymity compliance may coexist with substantial empirical linkability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T16:39:07Z)
• Conformal Lesion Segmentation for 3D Medical Images [82.92159832699583]
  We propose a risk-constrained framework that calibrates data-driven thresholds via conformalization to ensure the test-time FNR remains below a target tolerance.<n>We validate the statistical soundness and predictive performance of CLS on six 3D-LS datasets across five backbone models, and conclude with actionable insights for deploying risk-aware segmentation in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-19T08:21:00Z)
• Compartmentalised Agentic Reasoning for Clinical NLI [34.03033779546207]
  We introduce CARENLI, a Compartmentalised Agentic Reasoning for Clinical NLI that separates knowledge access from principled inference.<n> CARENLI improves fidelity by up to 42 points, reaching 98.0% in Causal Attribution and 81.2% in Risk State Abstraction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T13:14:47Z)
• Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework [77.45983464131977]
  We focus on how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications.<n>Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions.<n>We develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:52:14Z)
• Risk and cross validation in ridge regression with correlated samples [72.59731158970894]
  We provide training examples for the in- and out-of-sample risks of ridge regression when the data points have arbitrary correlations.<n>We demonstrate that in this setting, the generalized cross validation estimator (GCV) fails to correctly predict the out-of-sample risk.<n>We further extend our analysis to the case where the test point has nontrivial correlations with the training set, a setting often encountered in time series forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T17:27:29Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucinations via Conformal Abstention [70.83870602967625]
  We develop a principled procedure for determining when a large language model should abstain from responding in a general domain. We leverage conformal prediction techniques to develop an abstention procedure that benefits from rigorous theoretical guarantees on the hallucination rate (error rate) Experimentally, our resulting conformal abstention method reliably bounds the hallucination rate on various closed-book, open-domain generative question answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T11:32:03Z)
• Risk Minimization from Adaptively Collected Data: Guarantees for Supervised and Policy Learning [57.88785630755165]
  Empirical risk minimization (ERM) is the workhorse of machine learning, but its model-agnostic guarantees can fail when we use adaptively collected data. We study a generic importance sampling weighted ERM algorithm for using adaptively collected data to minimize the average of a loss function over a hypothesis class. For policy learning, we provide rate-optimal regret guarantees that close an open gap in the existing literature whenever exploration decays to zero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-03T09:50:13Z)
• Bayesian Model Averaging for Data Driven Decision Making when Causality is Partially Known [0.0]
  We use ensemble methods like Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) to infer set of causal graphs. We provide decisions by computing the expected value and risk of potential interventions explicitly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-12T01:55:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.