Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Time Series Granger Causality Inference
Meiliang Liu, Yunfang Xu, Zijin Li, Zhengye Si, Xiaoxiao Yang, Xinyue, Yang, Zhiwen Zhao

TL;DR
This paper introduces KANGCI, a novel neural network architecture that improves Granger causality inference from complex, high-dimensional time series by combining a new model with a time-reversal based causal selection method.
Contribution
The paper presents KANGCI, extending Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for causal inference, and introduces a time-reversal based algorithm for better causal relationship detection.
Findings
KANGCI achieves competitive accuracy on diverse datasets.
The method effectively handles nonlinear and high-dimensional data.
Time-reversal approach improves causal inference robustness.
Abstract
We propose the Granger causality inference Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANGCI), a novel architecture that extends the recently proposed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN) to the domain of causal inference. By extracting base weights from KAN layers and incorporating the sparsity-inducing penalty and ridge regularization, KANGCI effectively infers the Granger causality from time series. Additionally, we propose an algorithm based on time-reversed Granger causality that automatically selects causal relationships with better inference performance from the original or time-reversed time series or integrates the results to mitigate spurious connectivities. Comprehensive experiments conducted on Lorenz-96, Gene regulatory networks, fMRI BOLD signals, VAR, and real-world EEG datasets demonstrate that the proposed model achieves competitive performance to state-of-the-art methods in inferring…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. **Methods:** The paper introduces a creative extension of KAN to the problem of Granger causality inference. By leveraging the Kolmogorov–Arnold representation theorem and spline-based nonlinearities, the proposed framework captures complex, non-smooth, and high-dimensional dependencies that are difficult for standard MLP or RNN models. And the model utilized the TRGC algorithm, which is a simple yet effective strategy that improves robustness and reduces spurious correlations. 2. **Evaluati
1. **Novelty:** Although the paper combines KAN with Granger causality inference, the conceptual leap from prior work—particularly GC-KAN. The main innovations are the use of time-reversal fusion, which may be seen as incremental rather than fundamentally new. 2. **Methods:** The approach still relies on Granger causality, which reflects prediction rather than real cause-and-effect relationships. While the method models nonlinear patterns more accurately, it does not solve core issues like conf
This is a very nice architecture that has been baselined against some of the leading causal inference methods available. Interestingly, KAN is often not that good for reconstruction and forecasting tasks, but the modification for inference seems to allow it to perform well for this task.
The authors don't offer much in terms of how the method holds up under noise and data corruption. This would seem to be a valuable evaluation that could easily be done on the Lorenz96 model.
- Broad and carefully executed simulation coverage with known ground truth (facilitates clear metric comparisons). - Simple, reproducible pipeline (component-wise models; straightforward sparsity/read-out). - Empirical robustness of the fusion heuristic in several noisy, sparse regimes.
- Limited methodological novelty: swapping in KAN plus an ad hoc time-reversal rule; no new identification theory. - Evidence framing: improvements are mostly modest, not consistently significant, and not capacity/compute-matched against the strongest baselines. - Interpretability of “control”: time-reversal is positioned as a robustness device, but it is not a principled control outside linear settings; no explicit false-positive calibration (e.g., edge-wise FPR/FDR).
1. Application of KAN to causal inference; theoretically grounded via KA representation. 2. Integrates sparsity control directly into functional decomposition. 3. Extensive benchmark coverage from synthetic to real data.
1. Presentation dense; many equations without explanatory intuition. 2. Comparison baselines could include more recent nonlinear GC methods (e.g., NeuralODE-GC). 3. Unclear how spline control points affect interpretability and regularization strength. 4. Limited discussion on computational complexity of KAN layers.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFault Detection and Control Systems · Neural Networks and Applications
Methods+ ( 1 ) ⟷ 805 ⟷ ( 330 ) ⟷ 4056|How do I file a complaint with Expedia? · Balanced Selection
