arXiv:2508.01920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Identifying causal interactions in complex dynamical systems is a fundamental challenge across the computational sciences. Existing functional connectivity methods capture correlations but not causation. While addressing directionality, popular causal inference tools such as Granger causality and the Peter-Clark algorithm rely on restrictive assumptions that limit their applicability to high-resolution time-series data, such as the large-scale recordings now standard in neuroscience. Here, we introduce CITS (Causal Inference in Time Series), a nonparametric framework for inferring statistically causal structure from multivariate time series. CITS models dynamics using a structural causal model of arbitrary Markov order and statistical tests for lagged conditional independence. We prove consistency under mild assumptions and demonstrate superior accuracy over state-of-the-art baselines across simulated linear, nonlinear, and recurrent neural network benchmarks. Applying CITS to large-scale neuronal recordings from the mouse visual cortex, thalamus, and hippocampus, we uncover stimulus-specific causal pathways and inter-regional hierarchies that align with known anatomy while revealing new functional insights. We further highlight CITS ability in accurately identifying conditional dependencies within small inferred neuronal motifs. These results establish CITS as a theoretically grounded and empirically validated method for discovering interpretable statistically causal networks in neural time series. Beyond neuroscience, the framework is broadly applicable to causal discovery in complex temporal systems across domains.

arXiv:2602.22758v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We decompose physician disagreement in the HealthBench medical AI evaluation dataset to understand where variance resides and what observable features can explain it. Rubric identity accounts for 15.8% of met/not-met label variance but only 3.6-6.9% of disagreement variance; physician identity accounts for just 2.4%. The dominant 81.8% case-level residual is not reduced by HealthBench's metadata labels (z = -0.22, p = 0.83), normative rubric language (pseudo R^2 = 1.2%), medical specialty (0/300 Tukey pairs significant), surface-feature triage (AUC = 0.58), or embeddings (AUC = 0.485). Disagreement follows an inverted-U with completion quality (AUC = 0.689), confirming physicians agree on clearly good or bad outputs but split on borderline cases. Physician-validated uncertainty categories reveal that reducible uncertainty (missing context, ambiguous phrasing) more than doubles disagreement odds (OR = 2.55, p