Nonlinear machine-learning models are increasingly used to discover causal relationships in time-series data, yet the interpretation of their outputs remains poorly understood. In particular, causal scores produced by regularized neural autoregressive models are often treated as analogues of regression coefficients, leading to misleading claims of statistical significance. In this paper, we argue that causal relevance in nonlinear time-series models should be evaluated through forecast necessity rather than coefficient magnitude, and we present a practical evaluation procedure for doing so. We present an interpretable evaluation framework based on systematic edge ablation and forecast comparison, which tests whether a candidate causal relationship is required for accurate prediction. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a case study model, we apply this framework to a real-world case study of democratic development, modeled as a multivariate time series of panel data - democracy indicators across 139 countries. We show that relationships with similar causal scores can differ dramatically in their predictive necessity due to redundancy, temporal persistence, and regime-specific effects. Our results demonstrate how forecast-necessity testing supports more reliable causal reasoning in applied AI systems and provides practical guidance for interpreting nonlinear time-series models in high-stakes domains.
Causal discovery in time series is increasingly performed using nonlinear machine-learning models, yet the resulting causal relationships are almost always summarized by scalar edge scores. We argue that this practice obscures the true object learned by nonlinear autoregressive models: a state-dependent function whose effect varies across regimes, magnitudes, and contexts. We formalize function-valued causal influence for additive, contribution-decomposable architectures and show that scalar causal scores constitute a severe information bottleneck, conflating between-state variation with within-state residual noise. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a representative architecture, we introduce a practical framework based on Individual Conditional Expectation for estimating causal response functions directly from trained models. Through controlled synthetic experiments, we demonstrate that edges with indistinguishable scalar scores can exhibit qualitatively different functional behaviors, including monotonic, thresholded, saturating, and sign-changing effects. An applied case study on democratic development further shows that function-valued analysis reveals regime-specific and asymmetric causal structure systematically missed by score-centric approaches.
Valentina V. Kuskova, Dmitry Zaytsev, Michael Coppedge
While many explainable AI (XAI) methods have been proposed, most are not designed for time-series forecasting models and often rely on the implicit assumption that timestamp features are independent. This assumption ignores the fundamental property of temporal dependence and can lead to explanations that violate the sequential and causal structure of the data. We introduce \textsc{KARMA}, a method for explaining time-series predictors by constructing a Markov surrogate model that captures the temporal dependencies learned by the predictor. Our approach revolves around three main aspects: identifying the minimal history length K that is predictively sufficient for the model, estimating the best-fitting K-order Markov transition kernel from the discretized history space, and a five-level global explanation hierarchy that can be derived from the Markov transition kernel, which we illustrate using real-world weather data (Beijing PM 2.5). We also certify using complex synthetic data with known true causal edges that KARMA (i) recovers the data causal structure as learned by the model via a controlled experiment and (ii) identifies temporal dependencies better than established attribution methods such as TimeSHAP.
Most time series (TS) models are specialized for a single task, either understanding (i.e., returning text answers about a TS) or generation (i.e., returning a numeric forecast). Only recently have unified models begun to handle the two within a single architecture. Even these models, however, produce the two outputs as task-separated paths and cannot predict a series and explain why that prediction arises within a single coherent response. In this paper, we argue for a task-fused model that jointly produces 1) prediction (generation) and 2) selfexplanation (understanding), thereby integrating 1) numerical TS forecasting and 2) interpretable text reasoning within a single response. To enable the systematic study of this capability, we present both a benchmark and a recipe that jointly address the two tasks. The benchmark, ReasonTS-Bench, identifies five fundamental patterns underlying TS and enables the joint evaluation of both tasks. ReasonCast, our recipe for finetuning any LLM to perform both tasks jointly, yields a model that generates a reasoning chain and a forecast together in a single autoregressive pass. Extensive experiments show that ReasonCast outperforms both LLMs and TS models on prediction accuracy while producing verifiable, causal reasoning. Code is available at: https://github.com/seunghan96/reasoncast.