Coarse-to-Fine Learning of Dynamic Causal Structures
Authors: Dezhi Yang, Qiaoyu Tan, Carlotta Domeniconi, Jun Wang, Lizhen Cui, Guoxian Yu
Organizations: School of Software Shandong University Jinan, China · Department of Computer Science New York University Shanghai, China · Department of Computer Science George Mason University VA, USA · Shandong Institutes of Industrial Technology Jinan, China
Learning the dynamic causal structure of time series is a challenging problem. Most existing approaches rely on distributional or structural invariance to uncover underlying causal dynamics, assuming stationary or partially stationary causality. However, these assumptions often conflict with the complex, time-varying causal relationships observed in real-world systems. This motivates the need for methods that address fully dynamic causality, where both instantaneous and lagged dependencies evolve over time. Such a setting poses significant challenges for the efficiency and stability of causal discovery. To address these challenges, we introduce DyCausal, a dynamic causal structure learning framework. DyCausal leverages convolutional networks to capture causal patterns within coarse-grained time windows, and then applies linear interpolation to refine causal structures at each time step, thereby recovering fine-grained and time-varying causal graphs. In addition, we propose an acyclic constraint based on matrix norm scaling, which improves efficiency while effectively constraining loops in evolving causal structures. Comprehensive evaluations on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that DyCausal achieves superior performance compared to existing methods, offering a stable and efficient approach for identifying fully dynamic causal structures from coarse to fine.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Conceptual overview of DyCausal . DyCausal uses a sliding convolutional window to traverse temporal series and encodes coarse-grained time-varying causal structures. It then defines a linear interpolation strategy inspired by Taylor expansion to refine the causal structures at each time step {Wt}t=1T . Based on the acyclic constraint hnorm enforced by matrix 1 -norm, DyCausal reconstructs time series to optimize causal structures and obtains dynamic causal graphs G that conform to the dynamic distribution of time series.
Figure 2: The decoding process. Vector Zt is cut and decoded in parallel to obtain vectors {z~t,i}i=1m , which are again cut, recombined and decoded in parallel to obtain vectors {u~t,j∈Rdm}j=1dτ . The combination of {u~t,j∈Rdm}j=1dτ forms the matrix Wt .
Figure 3: Results on time series with dynamic causality. {W1,⋯,W10} represent the causal graphs estimated at each time step.
Figure 4: Comparison of acyclic constraints and their gradients, and runtime.
Methods
Traffic
AQI
Medical
Precision ↑
F1 ↑
Precision ↑
F1 ↑
Precision ↑
F1 ↑
DyCausal
87.41 ± 3.85
54.81 ± 2.51
75.31 ± 1.43
63.16 ± 1.23
83.21 ± 2.75
56.86 ± 1.35
CUTS+
80.10 ± 3.16
45.21 ± 1.74
65.60 ± 3.47
58.20 ± 2.44
44.82 ± 3.54
30.23 ± 1.85
JRNGC
68.04 ± 5.56
52.04 ± 2.41
72.34 ± 3.43
55.36 ± 1.61
55.56 ± 0.63
52.05 ± 0.75
NTS-NO
67.43 ± 5.35
46.07 ± 1.85
72.70 ± 2.99
40.09 ± 1.29
44.80 ± 2.13
34.27 ± 1.89
DYNO
47.63 ± 3.26
45.34 ± 2.92
62.55 ± 1.34
44.60 ± 0.75
48.40 ± 2.07
31.70 ± 1.25
Table 1: Results on CausalTime. The boldfaced and underlined results respectively highlight the methods that perform the first and second best among all compared methods. We omit the percentage signs % of Precision and F1 to simplify the representation.
Figure 5: Estimated dynamic causal structures on traffic subset. We observed that: (i) causality x6→x4 , x4→x19 , x6→x19 , x15→x7 and x19→x6 are dynamic up to the time t=20 and static after;(ii) causality x4→x8 , x19→x4 and x16→x10 are static before and after t=20 , but with different causal strengths. In particular, the strength of x4→x8 is almost zero before t=20 , which means that x4→x8 can only be identified from time series after t=20 .
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
t
Methods
20 nodes
80 nodes
TPR ↑
F1 ↑
SHD ↓
TPR ↑
F1 ↑
SHD ↓
W1
DyCausal
89.54 ± 6.98
91.43 ± 5.60
7.40 ± 5.39
89.10 ± 1.70
93.85 ± 1.31
18.20 ± 3.87
DYCAST
25.98 ± 10.33
29.51 ± 10.67
45.43 ± 7.21
-
-
-
DYNO
3.59 ± 3.18
3.52 ± 2.90
78.40 ± 10.75
0.35 ± 0.70
0.34 ± 0.68
294.90 ± 28.51
NTS-NO
3.89 ± 1.57
4.03 ± 1.69
72.33 ± 12.04
0.77 ± 1.01
0.78 ± 1.02
294.20 ± 15.55
W25
DyCausal
90.93 ± 6.01
94.38 ± 3.90
4.10 ± 2.88
91.01 ± 1.97
95.20 ± 1.18
13.40 ± 2.15
Appendix
Table A1: Results on time series with dynamic causality. W1 and W50 represent the causal graphs estimated at both ends of the time series. W25 represents the causal graph estimated in the middle of the time series. We omit the percentage signs % of TPR and F1 to simplify the representation.
Figure A1: Results on dynamic settings with d=10 variables and τ=1 maximum lag. W1 and W50 represent the causal graphs estimated at both ends of the time series. W25 represents the causal graph estimated in the middle of the time series. The left and right parts represent the ground-truth and the estimated causal matrices. Red and blue represent the positive and negative matrix weights respectively, and the darker the color, the greater the absolute value of the weight. The estimated matrices are basically consistent with the ground-truth matrices.
t
Methods
10 nodes
20 nodes
TPR ↑
F1 ↑
SHD ↓
TPR ↑
F1 ↑
SHD ↓
W1
DyCausal
90.35 ± 6.62
91.42 ± 4.39
3.20 ± 1.40
89.86 ± 3.83
92.26 ± 2.98
6.00 ± 2.37
w/o inter
75.67 ± 22.20
72.98 ± 23.78
12.50 ± 13.86
90.06 ± 5.45
92.18 ± 4.12
6.10 ± 3.67
W25
DyCausal
90.41 ± 7.88
92.65 ± 7.73
3.10 ± 3.24
91.09 ± 5.06
93.64 ± 5.47
4.90 ± 4.57
w/o inter
81.66 ± 15.05
83.25 ± 20.30
7.50 ± 11.15
88.69 ± 10.05
91.28 ± 9.88
6.40 ± 7.30
W50
DyCausal
89.62 ± 6.94
90.81 ± 3.67
3.50 ± 1.43
87.75 ± 6.53
89.40 ± 4.84
8.30 ± 4.03
Appendix
Table A2: Results on time series with dynamic causality. W1 and W50 represent the causal graphs estimated at both ends of the time series. W25 represents the causal graph estimated in the middle of the time series. We omit the percentage signs % of TPR and F1 to simplify the representation.
Figure A2: Results of DyCausal on datasets with number of nodes d={50,100,200,300} .
Figure A3: Results of DyCausal on datasets with fewer samples N={20,50,100,150} .
Figure A4: Results of DyCausal on datasets with times series lengths T={10,30,50,70,90} .
Figure A5: Results of DyCausal on datasets with noise strength {0.5,1.0,2.5,5.0} .
Figure A6: Results of DyCausal on datasets with maximum lag τ={1,2,3,4,5} .
Figure A7: Results of DyCausal on datasets with maximum lag τ=3 .
Figure A8: Results on time series with static settings.
linear structural equation model
matrices
DyCausal
DYNO
PCMCI
SVAM
10 nodes
TPR ↑
97.13 ± 2.42
85.46 ± 6.95
95.59 ± 1.83
39.79 ± 22.34
F1 ↑
98.45 ± 1.29
91.54 ± 4.45
58.87 ± 4.26
46.86 ± 24.15
SHD ↓
1.80 ± 1.54
9.30 ± 4.65
88.30 ± 12.81
52.60 ± 19.27
20 nodes
TPR ↑
97.11 ± 2.43
93.38 ± 3.79
96.26 ± 1.67
65.35 ± 6.84
F1 ↑
98.52 ± 2.43
96.54 ± 2.06
49.37 ± 4.94
70.40 ± 5.55
Appendix
Table A3: Results on time series with static causality. The boldfaced and underlined results respectively highlight the methods that perform the first and second best among all compared methods. We omit the percentage signs % of TPR and F1 to simplify the representation.
Figure A9: Results of DyCausal and DyCausal with hlog . The left is the ground-truth causal graph, the middle is the causal graph estimated by DyCausal , and the right is the causal graph estimated by DyCausal with hlog .
Figure A10: The trajectory of acyclic constraint values indexed by the number of iterations.
Figure A11: Results of DyCausal and DyCausal with hlog . The left is the ground-truth causal graphs, the middle is the causal graphs estimated by DyCausal , and the right is the causal graphs estimated by DyCausal with hlog .
Figure A12: The trajectory of acyclic constraint values indexed by the number of iterations.
NetSim ( d=15 )
DREAM ( d=100 )
Phoenix ( d=34 )
CausalRivers ( d=5 )
DyCausal
0.9391 ± 0.0075
0.6806 ± 0.0197
0.5472 ± 0.0185
0.7214 ± 0.0405
CUTS+
0.7058 ± 0.0071
0.6229 ± 0.0138
0.5104 ± 0.0151
0.6072 ± 0.0627
NGM
0.7499 ± 0.0020
0.5629 ± 0.0020
0.4809 ± 0.0083
0.4905 ± 0.0526
Appendix
Table A4: AUROC on NetSim, DREAM-3 and Phoenix.
β=0.001
β=0.005
β=0.01
β=0.05
β=0.1
W1
TPR
86.07
88.91
77.09
93.65
55.95
F1
66.46
77.36
70.02
95.49
63.68
SHD
99.0
51.5
70.0
9.0
55.0
W25
TPR
92.87
95.78
98.95
98.93
79.06
F1
88.37
94.77
98.43
99.46
86.83
SHD
24.0
10.0
3.0
1.0
63.0
Appendix
Table A5: Results of sensitivity analysis on β .
P=4,E=2
P=1,E=2
W1
W4
W8
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
TPR
93.11
87.92
91.21
91.92
97.06
86.87
94.12
86.87
91.18
87.88
90.20
89.90
95.10
F1
92.78
97.21
90.93
88.78
92.52
82.30
90.57
83.90
88.15
85.29
88.46
84.76
89.81
SHD
13.7
5.3
17.2
23.00
16.00
37.00
20.00
33.00
25.00
30.00
24.00
32.00
22.00
Appendix
Table A6: Results on non-smooth dynamic causality.
DyCausal
K=4,S=1
K=1,S=1
TPR
F1
SHD
TPR
F1
SHD
TPR
F1
SHD
W1
91.56
92.73
63.0
90.54
90.95
72.0
83.33
20.48
2485.0
W25
96.70
98.32
13.0
95.47
97.68
18.0
89.22
30.22
1644.0
W50
94.18
94.18
46.0
90.09
92.59
64.0
85.68
20.76
2512.0
runtime (ms)
2926.0
3527.0
1970.0
Appendix
Table A7: Results for settings K=4 , S=1 and K=1 , S=1 .
results of instantaneous causal graphs
T=50,d=50
T=10,d=20
W1
W25
W50
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
W9
W10
TPR
92.03
97.34
91.52
86.91
83.03
86.12
81.39
91.29
91.29
81.56
85.19
83.60
83.64
F1
94.45
98.24
93.84
89.27
89.53
91.80
89.43
93.62
93.88
89.03
90.19
89.59
86.47
SHD
7.2
2.2
6.8
6.2
9.8
8.5
8.7
2.7
2.8
8.8
9.5
10.3
8.0
results of lagged causal graphs
Appendix
Table A8: Results on instantaneous and lagged causality.
Time-varying causal models provide a powerful framework for studying dynamic scientific systems, yet most existing approaches assume that the underlying causal network is known a priori - an assumption rarely satisfied in real-world domains where causal structure is uncertain, evolving, or only indirectly observable. This limits the applicability of dynamic causal inference in many scientific settings. We propose Dynamic Causal Network Autoregression (DCNAR), a two-stage neural causal modeling framework that integrates data-driven causal discovery with time-varying causal inference. In the first stage, a neural autoregressive causal discovery model learns a sparse directed causal network from multivariate time series. In the second stage, this learned structure is used as a structural prior for a time-varying neural network autoregression, enabling dynamic estimation of causal influence without requiring pre-specified network structure. We evaluate the scientific validity of DCNAR using behavioral diagnostics that assess causal necessity, temporal stability, and sensitivity to structural change, rather than predictive accuracy alone. Experiments on multi-country panel time-series data demonstrate that learned causal networks yield more stable and behaviorally meaningful dynamic causal inferences than coefficient-based or structure-free alternatives, even when forecasting performance is comparable. These results position DCNAR as a general framework for using AI as a scientific instrument for dynamic causal reasoning under structural uncertainty.
Dmitry Zaytsev, Valentina Kuskova, Michael Coppedge
Lucy Family Institute for Data & Society, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA · Political Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Causal discovery with instantaneous effects in multivariate time series is challenging, as the instantaneous structure must be acyclic. Prior methods enforce this by either separating instantaneous and lagged estimation into multi-stage pipelines or imposing algebraic acyclicity constraints via complex augmented Lagrangian optimization, both of which incur high computational cost. In this work, we propose a different approach: we learn a differentiable permutation of variables using the Gumbel--Sinkhorn operator and triangularize the instantaneous coefficient matrix of a Structural Vector Autoregressive (SVAR) model in the learned order. This converts acyclicity from a hard constraint into a parameterization and keeps it valid throughout optimization. In doing so, our method enables unified, continuous optimization with gradient-based learning, leading to improved efficiency in time--series causal discovery. Across three real-world benchmarks, our method achieves the best overall performance compared with 12 baselines in both discovery accuracy and efficiency. On the large-scale benchmark, it further demonstrates strong scalability, achieving more than a 6x speedup over competing methods.
Leveraging deep learning for causal discovery in time series remains challenging because existing neural methods predominantly rely on component-wise architectures that fail to capture shared system dynamics or employ decoupled post-hoc graph extraction that risks overfitting to spurious correlations. We propose Mask2Cause, an end-to-end framework that recovers the underlying causal graph directly during the forecasting forward pass. Our approach introduces an Inverted Variable Embedding and an Adjacency-Constrained Masked Attention mechanism, trained with homoscedastic or heteroscedastic objectives to capture causal influences in both mean and variance. Empirical results on diverse benchmarks, from synthetic chaotic dynamics to realistic biological simulations, demonstrate state-of-the-art causal discovery with significantly reduced parameter complexity compared to standard baselines. We further show that inferred causal structures can be used to reduce parameter count of forecasting models by more than 70% on average while maintaining predictive accuracy.
Omar Muhammad, Pasupuleti Dhruv Shivkant, Deepak N. Subramani