TL;DR
This paper introduces CLEF, a novel model for controllable sequence editing in biological and clinical data, enabling precise interventions at specific times and variables, with significant improvements over existing methods.
Contribution
CLEF is the first model to learn temporal concepts for targeted, controllable sequence editing, allowing interventions at arbitrary times and variables in longitudinal data.
Findings
Improves sequence editing accuracy by 16.28% (MAE) on average.
Enables delayed sequence editing with 26.73% (MAE) improvement.
Achieves up to 62.84% (MAE) improvement in zero-shot counterfactual generation.
Abstract
Conditional generation models for longitudinal sequences can produce new or modified trajectories given a conditioning input. However, they often lack control over when the condition should take effect (timing) and which variables it should influence (scope). Most methods either operate only on univariate sequences or assume that the condition alters all variables and time steps. In scientific and clinical settings, interventions instead begin at a specific moment, such as the time of drug administration or surgery, and influence only a subset of measurements while the rest of the trajectory remains unchanged. CLEF learns temporal concepts that encode how and when a condition alters future sequence evolution. These concepts allow CLEF to apply targeted edits to the affected time steps and variables while preserving the rest of the sequence. We evaluate CLEF on 8 datasets spanning…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
* **Clear, useful problem framing for controllable sequence editing.** In my opinion, the split between immediate vs. delayed editing—and the choice to define delayed editing as a single-step, non-autoregressive jump—cleanly targets a real pain point (compounding error) in scientific/clinical forecasting. This makes the task definition itself a contribution. * **Broad, careful empirical evaluation with new benchmarks.** I think the scope (8 datasets, 4 contributed benchmarks, 9 baselines, p
* **“Implicit balancing” feels asserted more than demonstrated.** In my opinion, the paper leans on architectural intuition and empirical accuracy to suggest that the learned representation is balanced, but it doesn’t directly test balance. It might read more cautiously if the claim were framed as “consistent with improved balance,” and, if feasible, paired with light diagnostics (e.g., predicting treatment from the learned representation and reporting an IPM-style distance such as MMD/HSIC be
- The formalization of "delayed sequence editing" as a one-step generation task is interesting contribution. This distinguishes the problem from standard auto-regressive forecasting - Good empirical results CLEF-based models demonstrate consistent and often large improvements over their non-CLEF counterparts across all primary tasks: immediate editing , delayed editing , and zero-shot counterfactual generation
- Does the model assume that the entire, complex dynamic evolution of each specific variable (e.g., a single lab test) over an arbitrary time $\Delta t$ can be modeled as a single multiplicative scaling factor $c$ for that variable? This still seems dynamically and biologically implausible, as it ignores the coupled, differential nature of these systems. - Btw if that is the case, then if any single variable in the last observed state, $x_{k, t_i}$, is 0, then the predicted value for that variab
- The paper addresses an interesting problem with significant practical applications. - The paper is well-written and the proposed method is clearly motivated. - Experimental section is thorough and convincing.
- The related work section could be expanded. Certain areas, such as reinforcement learning, are closely related to this problem but are not discussed in the current version. - The paper could also benefit from including more baselines by adapting other existing and closely related methods to the experimental setup. For example, some methods proposed for biological, protein, and DNA sequence editing could be applied to the problem studied in this paper, even though they were originally designed
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsCounterfactuals Explanations · Masked autoencoder · Focus
