Temporal link prediction (TLP) is typically evaluated by predictive performance on unseen edges, but this criterion can conflate predictive accuracy with recovery of the underlying causal mechanism. In stochastic models, Fisher information governs the Cramér--Rao (CR) bound on parameter estimation error: higher Fisher information permits more accurate parameter recovery. We show that, under comonotonicity conditions between Fisher information and entropy, binary logistic models exhibit an estimation--prediction tradeoff: regimes with higher Fisher information, and hence smaller CR bounds, also have higher irreducible predictive entropy. To study this tradeoff in TLP, we introduce a probabilistic causal generator for temporal graphs with transient edges and known ground-truth causal structure, and validate the phenomenon empirically.
Aggregate performance on continuous-time dynamic graphs (CTDGs) combines, in a single score, the portion attributable to known temporal regularities and the additional predictive power of neural models. This study separates the two at the query level. We construct a mechanism-constrained predictor that uses pair recurrence, recency and history position, renewal patterns, and short sequential transitions while learning the compatibility within each mechanism. Across four CTDG datasets, this predictor recovers a substantial portion of the performance of strong neural baselines, and the recovered performance quickly saturates with a small, dataset-specific set of explicit mechanisms. Neural residuals concentrate on queries for which the positive and negative candidates have similar mechanism-execution profiles. Allowing conditional interactions among mechanisms is more effective than simply reweighting their existing contributions. Conditioning the contribution of one mechanism on the execution state of another recovers 54.9-73.2% of the original neural-only queries and improves overall paired accuracy on all four datasets. Although the magnitude of the effect varies across datasets, these results show that the performance gap of neural CTDG models need not be treated solely as an opaque difference in representational capacity. At least part of the gap is localized to queries with similar candidate execution profiles and can be functionally explained by conditional coordination among known, low-dimensional mechanisms.
Prediction error is widely used to evaluate nuisance-function estimators in causal inference, but its relationship with causal estimator performance may differ across performance measures. We studied this question in a partially linear model using Monte Carlo simulations. We compared ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized additive models (GAMs), XGBoost, and Double Machine Learning with XGBoost (DML-XGBoost), evaluating nuisance-function prediction error, bias, RMSE, and 95% confidence interval coverage. We also examined a simple joint-error measure based on the absolute cross-product of estimation errors from the exposure and outcome nuisance functions. Across the simulated settings, XGBoost had the lowest RMSE among the non-oracle methods, while DML-XGBoost generally provided better confidence interval coverage. Prediction error did not consistently track causal bias across methods and settings, and the method with the best point-estimation performance did not necessarily have the best confidence interval coverage. The joint-error measure was only weakly associated with causal bias and did not provide a useful standalone measure of causal performance. These results suggest that prediction error is useful for assessing nuisance-function estimation, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of the quality of the resulting causal estimator.
We introduce TabPFN-CFM, a causal foundation model that can handle multiple causal problems. TabPFN-CFM predicts both causal structure and outcomes from observational data, supports queries on all three levels of Pearl's Causal Hierarchy and uses known graph structure when available to improve predictions. TabPFN-CFM is trained on synthetic datasets, and generalises to real datasets, demonstrating improved performance over both structural and outcome prediction baselines.