Conformal-AEDL: Uncertainty-Calibrated Neuro-Symbolic Multiagent Causal Inference for Non-Stationary Time Series
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/49f82931Keywords:
Adaptive conformal inference, causal attribution, concept drift, multiagent systems, neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence, non-stationary time series, uncertainty calibrationAbstract
Event-driven causal labeling in non-stationary time series is useful only when the system can state when its own root-cause decision is ambiguous. Existing neuro-symbolic multiagent pipelines improve semantic and structural consistency, but their confidence scores need not retain a stable error meaning after regime changes. This paper presents Conformal-AEDL, a resource-efficient extension that couples heterogeneous residual and propagation agents with reliability-weighted consensus, an explicit symbolic compliance layer, and online conformal prediction sets. The method outputs a set of plausible root causes rather than forcing a singleton, and adapts the conformal error budget when score surprises indicate rapid drift. Evaluation uses a nonlinear six-node structural causal model with four regimes and a semi-synthetic U.S. macroeconomic benchmark whose dynamics and residuals are estimated from 203 public quarterly observations while intervention labels remain controlled. Across ten seeds, Conformal-AEDL attains 0.929±0.022 and 0.917±0.029 coverage at a nominal 0.90 level, with average set sizes of 1.186 and 1.890. Relative to static split conformal prediction, this reduces set size by 26.0% and 29.5%, respectively. The results show that calibrated abstention can be added without inventing causal ground truth or relying on proprietary language-model calls, while also exposing an important limitation: immediate post-switch coverage remains difficult in the macro benchmark.
Downloads
References
[1] Xu, C., & Xie, Y. (2021). Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 139, pp. 11559–11569). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/xu21a.html
[2] Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., & Shafer, G. (2005). Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer.
[3] Lei, J., G’Sell, M., Rinaldo, A., Tibshirani, R. J., & Wasserman, L. (2018). Distribution-free predictive inference for regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1307116
[4] Angelopoulos, A. N., & Bates, S. (2023). A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 16(4), 494–591. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000087
[5] Gibbs, I., & Candès, E. J. (2021). Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 34, pp. 1660–1672). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/hash/0d34c075d570a8b8501f60a41b4b439c-Abstract.html
[6] Gibbs, I., & Candès, E. J. (2024). Conformal inference for online prediction with arbitrary distribution shifts. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(162), 1–36. https://jmlr.org/papers/v25/23-0602.html
[7] Barber, R. F., Candès, E. J., Ramdas, A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (2023). Conformal prediction beyond exchangeability. The Annals of Statistics, 51(2), 816–845. https://doi.org/10.1214/22-AOS2247
[8] Tibshirani, R. J., Barber, R. F., Candès, E. J., & Ramdas, A. (2019). Conformal prediction under covariate shift. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 32).
[9] Romano, Y., Patterson, E., & Candès, E. J. (2019). Conformalized quantile regression. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 32).
[10] Stankeviciute, K., Alaa, A. M., & van der Schaar, M. (2021). Conformal time-series forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 34, pp. 6216–6228). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/hash/2e826cf00b72724b14f7d3c3b14d3f30-Abstract.html
[11] Liang, Y., Jiao, Y., Ping, W., Fan, H., & Han, X. (2026). Adaptive event-driven labeling: A neuro-symbolic multiagent framework for causal inference in non-stationary time series. IEEE Access, 14, 58741–58752. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3709267
[12] Zaffran, M., Féron, O., Goude, Y., Josse, J., & Dieuleveut, A. (2022). Adaptive conformal predictions for time series. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 162, pp. 25834–25866). PMLR. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/zaffran22a.html
[13] Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
[14] Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[15] Peters, J., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2017). Elements of causal inference: Foundations and learning algorithms. MIT Press.
[16] Runge, J., et al. (2019). Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets. Science Advances, 5(11), eaau4996. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4996
[17] Zheng, X., Aragam, B., Ravikumar, P. K., & Xing, E. P. (2018). DAGs with NO TEARS: Continuous optimization for structure learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 31).
[18] Pamfil, R., et al. (2020). DYNOTEARS: Structure learning from time-series data. In Proceedings of the AISTATS (Vol. 108, pp. 1595–1605). PMLR.
[19] Peters, J., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2013). Causal inference on time series using restricted structural equation models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 26).
[20] Zi, B. (2024). Cloud-native distributed systems for real-time payment intelligence. AI and Data Science Journal, 1(1), 51–56. Shimizu, S., Hoyer, P. O., Hyvärinen, A., & Kerminen, A. (2010). Learning linear non-Gaussian causal models in the presence of latent variables by exploiting non-Gaussianity. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 1709–1731. https://jmlr.org/papers/v11/shimizu10a.html
[21] Truong, C., Oudre, L., & Vayatis, N. (2020). Selective review of offline change point detection methods. Signal Processing, 167, 107299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2019.107299
[22] Page, E. S. (1954). Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, 41(1–2), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/41.1-2.100
[23] Shinn, N., et al. (2023). Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 36, pp. 8634–8652).
[24] Du, Y., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Mordatch, I. (2024). Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 235, pp. 11733–11763). PMLR.
[25] d’Avila Garcez, A., & Lamb, L. C. (2023). Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd wave. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56, 12387–12406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10442-6
[26] Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017). On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 70, pp. 1321–1330). PMLR.
[27] Hoerl, A. E., & Kennard, R. W. (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1970.1048863
[28] Lütkepohl, H. (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer.
[29] Pedregosa, F., et al. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830. https://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
[30] Teng, D. (2025). TEAS: Token- and energy-aware autoscaling for cost-efficient LLM serving. AI and Data Science Journal.
[31] Seabold, S., & Perktold, J. (2010). Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (pp. 92–96).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Applied Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
