The Mask Is Not the Model: Auditing Prefix Invariance in Attention, State-Space, and Hybrid Sequence Models

We formalize prefix invariance: representations at position t must not depend on future inputs. We give a lightweight audit, two forward passes, no training or gradients, that localizes exactly where causality breaks. Attention-mask inspection is incomplete: leaks can occur via scans or normalization despite correct masks. Across 192 injected-fault trials on eight checkpoints, mask inspection found none, while our audit localized all 192/192, also finding a defect in Zamba2 and Nemotron-H.

Equality, Equity, and Causality in Fairness Research: A Commentary on Cheng (2026)

This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?" by Ying Cheng (2026, doi:10.1017/psy.2026.10110). Cheng offers a systematic comparison between long-standing test fairness and modern algorithmic fairness. Her mapping of the entire testing workflow onto the AI/ML fairness paradigm, rather than only the final selection stage, is a crucial contribution to interdisciplinary fairness research. This commentary extends her discussion by examining two conceptual issues: the distinction between equality and equity, and the role of causality in fairness research. Together, the focus article and this commentary point to directions for future fairness research across the psychometrics and AI/ML communities.

CAAD: Causality-Aware Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection via Multi-Scale Alignment and Structural Causal Consistency

The operational integrity of complex industrial systems relies on precise anomaly detection and diagnosis. The vast majority of existing methods narrowly focus on capturing temporal similarities of representations, often overlooking the disruption of internal causal relationships, which characterizes system failures and latent anomalies. In this paper, we propose a novel framework (CAAD) that reframes anomaly detection as the continuous verification of Granger causality consistency through exogenous variables. Specifically, the CAAD framework models exogenous time-series variables as residuals, identifying anomalies as significant deviations caused by external interventions. The proposed framework leverages multi-scale alignment to internalize system dynamics and utilizes a gradient-based matrix to monitor internal causal relationship breakdowns. By quantifying causal deviations of both dynamic evolution and relational topology, the CAAD is able to capture subtle causal shifts to achieve precise anomaly detection. Extensive experiments on real-world industrial datasets demonstrate that the CAAD achieves high-precision anomaly detection, outperforming most state-of-the-art baselines.

Scientific Explanations in Health Sciences: Causality, Trust, and Epistemic Adequacy

Medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is widely expected to transform clinical practice, yet the decision-making processes of many Machine Learning (ML) models remain opaque. Explainability has been advanced as a partial remedy to clarify why AI generates predictions, particularly in high-stakes contexts. Despite ongoing efforts, debates on what constitutes an adequate medical explanation remain unsettled. Yet, explanation has long been a central topic of inquiry in the philosophy of science and medicine. The insights developed in these fields, however, have been largely overlooked in contemporary explainable AI (XAI) research, leaving its foundational assumptions insufficiently examined. To address this gap, this paper develops a critical review at the intersection of philosophy of science and XAI. It examines prevailing accounts of what counts as an explanation in the health sciences and assesses their adequacy for informing XAI in medicine, arguing that they provide necessary conditions for a philosophically grounded approach to explainability in this domain. Building on this foundational philosophical literature, the discussion identifies three central axes of analysis: the role of causality in medical reasoning, the epistemic and relational dimensions of medical trust, and the criteria of explanatory adequacy as shaped by the pragmatic needs of diverse stakeholders. By integrating philosophical analysis with current developments in medical AI, the paper outlines principles for designing XAI systems that offer explanations that are not only epistemically robust but also aligned with the epistemic and practical requirements of clinical decision-making, shaping ongoing debates in medical XAI toward underexplored conceptual foundations.

Infinitesimal Causality

This paper introduces a categorical account of infinitesimal causality in Frobenius Markov categories equipped with tangent-bundle semantics. IDC captures the infinitesimal layer in which interventions act as tangent deformations of copy/discard structure. Two distinct Frobenius structures interact: (1) the categorical Frobenius algebra on classical variables encoding copying, comparing, and discarding; and (2) the geometric Frobenius integrability condition, namely involutive closure of the intervention distribution, distinct from the algebraic Frobenius structure. Categorical causal sufficiency is defined as the compatibility of these two notions. A key observation is that, for structural causal models, infinitesimal causality is most naturally formulated in the slice of deterministic mechanisms over exogenous variables, with visible stochastic kernels obtained only after pushforward. Interventions are tangent vectors that deform the Frobenius copy/discard operations; their Lie brackets measure whether this deformation preserves classical information-flow structure. Pearl's do-calculus is used as a guiding example of intervention identities: ignoring irrelevant interventions corresponds to counit invariance, action/observation exchange to coproduct compatibility with pushforward, and independence to involutive bracket closure of the visible intervention distribution.

Closure of Self-Determining System Based on Causal and Constitutive Relations

A self-determining system is defined as one in which causes originating within the system influence the system itself. This definition raises the question of how to specify system boundaries. Although the concept of "closure" is commonly used for this purpose, defining boundaries solely in terms of causal relations introduce challenges, such as how to handle external causes and circular causality. To address this issue, we introduce two types of asymmetric relations: causal and constitutive. We propose that system boundaries can be defined as closures of loops formed by these relations, referred to as causal-constitutive loops. By constraining constitutive relations, the resulting system necessarily includes internal causes and thereby satisfies self-determination. Furthermore, to prevent reduction to supervenience, constitutive relations must involve at least two independent variables. This minimal requirement leads to two interdependent loops, which implies a dual-process organization.