A Simple yet Scalable Granger Causal Structural Learning Approach for Topological Event Sequences
Authors: Mingjia Li
Shuo Liu
Hong Qian
Aimin Zhou
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: Telecommunication Network Fault Diagnosis
Topological Hawkes Processes
Causal structure learning
Event Sequences
Scalability
Primary area: causal_inference

Abstract: In modern telecommunication networks, faults manifest as alarms, generating thousands of events daily. Network operators need an efficient method to identify the root causes of these alarms to mitigate potential losses. This task is challenging due to the increasing scale of telecommunication networks and the interconnected nature of devices, where one fault can trigger a cascade of alarms across multiple devices within a topological network. Recent years have seen a growing focus on causal approaches to addressing this problem, emphasizing the importance of learning a Granger causal graph from topological event sequences. Such causal graphs delineate the relations among alarms and can significantly aid engineers in identifying and rectifying faults. However, existing methods either ignore the topological relationships among devices or suffer from relatively low scalability and efficiency, failing to deliver high-quality responses in a timely manner. To this end, this paper proposes $S^2GCSL$, a simple yet scalable Granger causal structural learning approach for topological event sequences. $S^2GCSL$ utilizes a linear kernel to model activation interactions among various event types within a topological network, and employs gradient descent to efficiently optimize the likelihood function. Notably, it can seamlessly incorporate expert knowledge as constraints within the optimization process, which enhances the interpretability of the outcomes. Extensive experimental results on both large-scale synthetic and real-world problems verify the scalability and efficacy of $S^2GCSL$.

A Simple yet Scalable Granger Causal Structural Learning Approach for Topological Event Sequences
Mingjia Li" Shuo Liu" Hong Qian' Aimin Zhou
Shanghai Institute of Al for Education and School of Computer Science and Technology,
East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
{1imj, shuoliul@ste ecnu. ecnu.edu.cc cn {hqian, amzhou |ccs ecnu. munu.edu.com cn
Abstract
In modern telecommunication networks, faults manifest as alarms, generating thousands of events daily. Network operators need efficient method to identify the root causes of these alarms to mitigate potential losses. This task is challenging due the increasing scale of telecommunication networks and the interconnected nature of devices, where one fault can trigger a cascade of alarms across multiple devices within topological network. Recent years have a growing focus on causal approaches to addressing this problem, emphasizing the importance of learning Granger causal graph from topological event sequences. Such causal graphs delineate the relations among alarms and can significantly aid engineers identifying and rectifying faults. However, existing methods either ignore the topological relationships among devices or suffer from relatively low scalabil- ity and efficiency. failing to deliver high-quality responses timely manner. To this end, this paper proposes S'GCSL, a simple yet scalable Granger causal structural learning approach for topological event sequences. S'GCSL utilizes a linear kernel to model activation interactions among various event types within a topological network, and employs gradient descent to efficiently optimize the likelihood function. Notably, it can seamlessly incorporate expert knowledge constraints within the optimization process, which enhances the interpretability of the outcomes. Extensive experimental results on both large-scale synthetic and real-world problems verify the scalability and efficacy of S GCGSL.
Introduction
Telecommunication networks are an important component of infrastructure of modern society, where thousands of alarms may be generated by various types of faults on a daily basis. It is crucial for network operators to efficiently identify the root causes of these alarms since for every additional minute that fault persists in telecommunication networks, it can lead to significant economic losses and cause negative public sentiment. However, the increasing scale of telecommunication networks and the interconnected nature of devices make this task particularly challenging. A single fault has the potential to trigger cascade of alarms across multiple devices within a topological network. How to model the generation of event sequences, especially in large-scale, multi-event--yy scenarios, has become more and more urgent in the telecommunication network fault diagnosis (TNFD) task.
One promising approach to understanding and predicting the generation and propagation of event sequences is the application of Granger causality analysis [Granger 1969). which in the context of
* Equull contribution.
HHnn Qian is the corresponding author.
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

Devioes (Lecations) G,,NNE,) (0.1)
Orumition
X(l < 1g)
Infergez
Alarms (levents) GvCV. E2) e (0,3)
SN
Infer
Causal Graph Go(V.Ep)
Topological Network SN(,,Ey)
Topological Event Sequences
Granger Causal Strueture
Generation Causal Discovery
The left panel shows an example of the topologiaal event sequences generated by a mobile network, where a Granger causal graph is expected to be inferred to serve the TNFD task. The right panel illustrates the abstracted generation and inference processes. Solid lines represent the data generation process for event sequences, while dashed lines correspond to the inference process for the causal graph. Solid circles denote observed variables, and dashed circles represent latent variables.
Figure 1:
TNFD, can help in identifying whether type of alarm can be the evidence of the occurrence of particular faults. As shown in the left panel of Figure T the mutual activation effects among various types of events are considered causal structural learning problem. However, within the scope of learning Granger causality from event sequences, most of the methods rely the assumption that event sequences and identically distributed (i.i..).. Yet, in the scenario of TNFD, the topological nature devices inherently links events across the network, challenging the validity of such i.i.d. assumption.
form of Granger causality and the task can be formulated as
independent
Fortunately, a number of notable methods (Cai et al. 2024: Liu al. 2024 have emerged very recently to solve the problem of Granger causal structural learning from event sequences under non- i..d. assumptions, where the generation of alarm sequences is modeled by the topological multivariate Hawkes process (TMHP) [Cai et al., 2024]. However, all of these existing suffer from the issue efficiency or scalability, which essential in the scenario of large-scale TNFD. Specifically, topological Hawkes process (THP) [Cai al.) 2024 proposes the TMHP model whose likelihood function of the Granger causal graph is optimized through gradient- free manner, where the optimization of structure and parameter is decoupled, leading to relative inefficiency. On the other hand, the topological neural Poisson auto-regressive model (TNPAR) [Liu et al. [2024] proposes utilize the neural point process (NPP) to implement the intensity function in TMHP, which greatly enhances the model's ability to model complex relationships among events. However, since NPP relies on deep neural networks, lacks an analytical expression for its likelihood function. Consequently, optimization is only feasible through the prediction of event sequences, which slows down the training process and limits the model's 's scalability.
approaches
To address the challenges of scalability as well as efficiency presented in the TNFD task, this paper proposes GCCLL, simple yet scalable Granger causal structural learning approach for topological event sequences. SCGCSL utilizes a linear kernel to implement the activation effect among various event types and adopt gradient descent manner to optimize the likelihood function. It is worth noting that multiple prior expert knowledge, namely, sparsity and acyclicity, can be integrated into this optimization procedure in simple form of constraints, which improves the interpretability of results. Extensive experiments on both large-scale synthetic problems and a real-world TNFD problem on metropolitan telecommunication network alarm data verify the scalability and efficacy of SCGCSL In nutshell, the main contribution of this paper includes:
We propose simple yet scalable Granger causal structural learning method, incorporating simple modeling and gradient-basee based optimization, to efficiently infer Granger causal graph from topological event sequences of alarms in telecommunication networks.
By incorporating experts' prior knowledge as constraints into the objective function, we provide a simple method to guarantee the interpretability during the process of optimization within the context of TNFD.
Extensive experiments show that S'GCSL not only achieves superior performance in effec- tiveness, efficiency and scalability, but also maintains robustness across diverse scenarios, validating its practical applicability in real-world telecommunication network environments.

---

The subsequent sections of this paper respectively recap the related work, introduce the proposed method, present the experimental results and analysis, and finally conclude the paper.
2 Related Work
Temporal Point Processes. Temporal point processes are stochastic processes used for modeling event sequences. They can be categorized into statistical point processes and neural point processes. Statistical point processes focus developing appropriate intensity functions, often with parameters that have specific physical interpretations. Examples of statistical point processes include the Poisson process [Cox and R T955], Hawkes process (Hawkes and G. 1971), J. self-correcting process [Isham eet al.
1979] and reactive point process [Frtekin et al.) 2015 On the other hand, NPP [Shchur al. 2021 utilize the powerful learning capabiliitess of neural networks to implement the intensity functions, allowing the model to potentially capture complex relationships among events.
Granger Causality for Event Sequences. Various methods exist for discovering Granger causality from event sequences. For example, Hawkes process based methods [Zhou et al.. 2013 Xu et al. 2016] operate on the assumption that past events stimulate the occurrence of related events in the future only if the former Granger causes the latter. However, these Hawkes process based methods significantly rely the i..d. assumption, which is violated in TNFD due to the interconnected nature of devices. To address the non-i.i.d. challenge, THP (Cai et al., 2024 generalizes the Hawkes process to non-i.i.d. case by incorporating the topological information among devices. However, due to the use of gradient-frce frreeentttfeeeeeeee optimization to search for Granger causal structures, THP has efficiency shortcomings, which could undermine its competitiveness in the TNFD task. Inspired by THP, TNPAR [Liu et al. 2024) further proposes to utilize an NPP to model the intensity function, which significantly improves the model's capability represent intricate event relationships. However, due to the lack of an analytical expression for the likelihood function, NPP optimization is limited to reconstructing training data from event sequences and conducting training in supervised learning manner, which not only lacks theoretical guarantees but also performs relatively inefficient. This could make TNPAR unable to handle large-scale problems as well. Other NPP based methods include causality from attributions on sequence of events (CAUSE) (Zhang et al., 2020] and transformer Hawkes process (TransHP) [Zuo et al. 2020). CAUSE uses an attribution method to extract Granger causality from the well-trained NPP, and in TransHP, the temporal dependencies among event sequences are captured by a transformer. These NPP based methods are typically flexible, and thus can incorporate topology information through some modifications. Unfortunately, the scalability of these methods are also not ideal due to the same reason as TNPAR.
In a different context, our work is also related to Granger causal discovery from time series. In (Brillinger and R 1994], researchers aggregate event sequences into time series, enabling the analysis of event sequences using auto-regressive models. Amortized causal discovery (ACD) (Löwe] al., 2022] applies an amortized model to infer Granger causal structures from time series. In addition, PC with momentary conditional independence test (PCMCT) (Runge) 2020) and methods based on transfer entropy [Mijatovie et al., 2021] [hen et al.] 2020], are founded on strict causal assumptions rather than Granger causality and utilize independence tests or measures to discover the causal structure from event sequences.
3
The Proposed S'GCSL
3.1 Problem Formulation
In the problem of learning Granger causal structure from topological event sequences in telecom- munication networks, suppose the topological connections between devices are represented as an undirected graph G. (N, EN). where N is the device set and the edges E' indicate physical con- nections between these devices. Besides, a directed graph Gv (V,Ev) captures the Granger causal relationships among different event types V. with Ev representing the causal edges between two different event types. In this scenario, an event can not only influence future events at its location but also at devices that topologically connected to it.
Given this setup, we consider topological event sequences of length m, denoted by X [Vv, ni, ti, 4 E m... These sequences arise from the causal interactions defined in
3

---

GV and occur within the structure of GN. Here, V represents the event type, n; E N denotes the device where the event occurs, t, [0. refer to the start timestamps of the event and & E Z+ denotes how many timestamps the event last. We can model the occur- rence of these events as a series of counting processes (Ce,)()]w E V.n E N,t E [0. 7)}, where (t)) counts the number of times event type v has occurred at device up to time t. For practical analysis, the continuous interval [0, is segmented into [T/A A smaller intervals, where A E g+ is chosen based on the application context. The number of occurrences within these intervals are recorded as OV.N = [0 {l...., [T/A]] u E V, E N), where 0r = C..n (t A) Cun 1) A) reflects the occurrences of event type device within the interval ((t 1) x A
Assuming that the counting processes within each time interval follow Poisson process, where the intensity X, refers the expected number of occurrences in an interval of event type v on device at time 1, and the probability of observing O,"" occurrences can be formulated using the Poisson probability function as follows:
P(O =0) (1 A
0 = 0, 0,,,
o!
This sets the stage to define the problem of causal discovery from topological event sequences as Definition below.
Definition 1 (Granger Causal Discovery from Topological Event Sequences). Given the records of event sequences X {(v,, ny: 44, Li (1....,m) m)), and the existing topological network (N EN), the objective of Granger causal discovery from topological event sequences is to deduce the Granger causal graph Gv(V, Ev) among the event types.
To address this problem, we introduce the S*GCSL model, which includes both a generation process and an inference process.
3.2 Generation Process of the Event Sequences
The generation process of SCCSLL is illustrated with solid lines in the right panel of Figure
I
where the occurrence O is influenced by historical event sequences X₁, = {1, n2, to ( it.
t S t; + (,), along with two types of matrices, A and Bu Here, A is a V x V binary matrix indicating Granger causality between event types. The element Av.. from matrix A at row and column j denotes the causality: if Au,,, O, it means that there is no Granger causality between event type v, and vy. Otherwise, there exists a causality. Bo: represents a set of matrices where each B& is N N binary matrix showing the physical connections
(Bo, I...., B. between devices at geodesic distance Bouttier et al. 2003 of l within GN. The element B Ba,,y in matrix B& at row i and column j specifies this connection: if B B,,,,, 1, then the geodesic distance between device and ny is less than or equal to k. Otherwise, B B.,ny is set to 0.
In this paper, we utilize a linear activation function to model the causal relationships among event types, and the intensity X, of event type on a device is given as:
11" n
Σ
Bk
where "." is a constant representing the baseline intensity of event type v on device n and Ongy is a coefficient denoting the activation intensity of event type i; on event type v, which can be considered as the Granger causality of U; - v. Eit means the summation over all the events j that the event occurs during the duration of
Counterintuitively, such a simple assumption based on linear activation function can effectively model complex functions that depict how event intensities vary over time. This capability arises because the intensity of an event at given time may be influenced by countless preceding events. Even though the impact of each individual event is simple, the superposition of numerous linear functions can approximate arbitrarily complex intensity functions.

---

3.3 Inference Process of the Granger Causal Graph
The inference mechanism of GCSL is illustrated with dashed lines in the right panel of Figure | The diagram indicates that the causal matrices A are deduced by integrating the current event occurrences X (to), historical event sequences X₁. n4,,, t4, C.)lt, < t, lj.. and the topological network Bo
Considering the generation model defined in Eq. 2 the coefficient aeee is treated as the Granger causality statistic of event type U; on event type v. Consequently, the weighted Granger causal matrix where j aijj A.,, along with the baseline intensity matrix f can be seen as the parameters of the generation model θ {A', 1.). and the fog-likelihood function of O given the observed event sequences X = {(U; n4, L, Eg)l E [I....,m]]
A' R / V
m}} can be expressed as follows:
L(A', 1
Σ
Σ
Pin log Ar
Σ
X
dt
Σ
log(u un
Σ
Alggon B mn
imn
jdgctistste
(3)
where Σinee means the summation over all the events that occur device With such log- likelihood function, the Granger causal discovery problem can be transformed into the following optimization problem that estimates the optimal parameters O* {A* 1 as:
A _r arg min I(A',)). A
where A denotes the inferred weighted Granger causal matrix.
As mentioned before, some prior expert knowledge of the causal structures in the TNFD scenario should be taken into consideration to ensure the inferred causal graph interpretable. Specifically, properties of the causal graph among event types, namely sparsity and acyclicity. The sparsity of activation effects suggest that most event types only influence a small fraction of other event types in telecommunication networks. The sparsity can be reflected in the entry-norm constraint of A' as:
focus
VI V
A
A
Se,
(5)
where ||Al| denotes the 1.1 entry-norm of A' and e is a small positive constant.
Besides, acyclicity suggests that the activation effects among event types should not form cycles and there is no self-excitation. As a result, the deduced causal graph should a DAG, which motivates us to introduce the acyelic constraint (Zheng et al. 2018 as:
(AA) = trace((I + BA' o ATIM
V = 0,
(6)
where I is the identity matrix, 3 is a constant and o denotes the Hardamard product. Consequently, the optimization with constraints can be written as:
min A'
L(A', .1) s.t.||A'|| S h(A'') =.
By leveraging the Lagrangian multiplier method, the final optimization problem is defined as:
A 1²*
arg min L(A', + A1llA'I1 X2h(A'),
(8)
A'u
where X₁ and Ao refer to the regularized hyperparameters. For the optimization procedure, the Adam optimizer [Kingma and Ba 2015) which known for its efficiency and stability is adopted with learning rate Ir = 0.05.
5

---

After the optimization, we got the weighted Granger causal matrix A and to deduce the final binary adjancency matrix A, edges with too small weights are pruned, i.e.,
{1 if A p
A = (di.)): where
Di
if A S
and p is a constant hyperparameter to control the pruning threshold.
4 Experiments
In this section, we will implement the proposed SCGCSL method and the baseline approaches on both simulated data and metropolitan lelecommunication network alarm data. All methods will undergo testing using 10 different random seeds, and the results will be reported in the form of mean and standard deviation over these 10 repetitions. The evaluation metrics for the experiments will encompass F1 score [Powers] 2020], Structural Hamming Distance (SHD), and Structural Intervention Distance (SID) [Pteers and Bühlmann 2015].
Specifically, precision denotes the proportion of predicted edges that actually present among the true edges, while recall represents the proportion of true edges that have been correctly predicted. Fl score is the weighted harmonic mean of both Precision and Recall, and is calculated F1 2x Pxeccision x Recull, the higher Fl score the better (t). SHD indicates the number of edge insertions, Precision + Rtccall
deletions, or flips required to transform one graph into another, the lower SHD) the better (J). SII) a measure that quantifies the similarity between two DAGs based on their corresponding causal inference statements, the lower SID the better (L).
In experiments, use the following Granger causal discovery methods comparisons: TNPAR Liu et al. 2024]. ADM4 [Zhou et al. 2013), CAUSE (Zhang et al.) 2020], PCMCI [Runge 2020] MLE SGL Xu al. 2016] and ACD [Lwwe et al. 2022]. We would like to point out that THP Cai et al. 2024 and TransHP (Zuo et al.) 2020 are not meluded because they are too inefficient to produce results within required time under most settings. All the experiments are conducted on Linux server with two 3.00GHz Intel Xeon Gold 6354 CPUs and one RTX3090 GPU. All the models are implemented by PyTorrch [Paszke et 2019 and the code available at hhttps
//github cesthuu..com/ain 1aLi666//26GS0 httpa//..c.cchtgaaaaaaaa///////
4.1 Implementation and Hyperparameters
In the algorithm implementation of S²GCSL, the involved hyperparameters include: the geodesic distance in the topological network k, the regularization coefficients λ1, A2 and the pruning threshold In the synthetic experiments, we set these hyperparameters as follows: k = 2, p Worth noting that the proper values of An and X2 are related the scale of sample size and thus vary over different settings. We adopt heuristic way to estimate the proper range of Å₁ A2 that calculate the local gradient of loss over |(ll and h h(A') respectively. In the real-worke experiments, we set the hyperparameters as follows: h = 1, x 10 Å = 5 10 and A2 = 1 x 10
x 10
4.2 Synthetic Experiments
4.2.1
Synthetic Experimental Setup
The synthetic data is generated in the following manner: A Granger causal graph and topo- logical graph are randomly created using Erdös Rényi random graph generator. b) Root event records are produced using Poisson process with base intensity parameter μ in the Hawkes process. These root event records occur spontaneously within the system. c) Based on the root event records, propagated event records are discretely generated according to both the time inter- val A and the excitation coefficient a. It is worth noting that event sequences can be sparse in real-world scenarios. To address this, time interval parameter A is introduced the generation process, dividing the time domain [o. I] into small intervals with indexes as {1...., [T/A]] where [.1 refers to the ceiling function. Then, the event records can be summarized within the same timestamp. Note that A > 0, and A = implies the use of the original event sequences. The simulated data is generated by systematically varying one parameter at a time in the generation process, while keeping the default parameters constant. The parameters included in the generation

---

SPOCSL
THPAR
+
ADM
CAUSE
++
POMCI
-4- MLE SGL
+
ACD
(o) Sensitivity Range o(x10%)
(b) Sensitivity to Range (fx100)))
Sensitivity to Samplesice
F1 11.core
0.0
23
24
23
35
57
5000
100399
15300
20000
250099
30093
Senstiivityy
Sensitivity
Sensitiftty
1.0
141
3.-
03
34
32
15
Figure 2: The F1 Scores of different methods on synthetic data.
SPCCEL
THPAR
ADM
CAUSE
POMCI
MLE GLL
ACD
Sencitivity Samplesize
61-
1.
12690
(1093) (5003)
29366
206093
8E091
(b) Sensttvvity
(b) Sensitivity Num. Event
(b) Senaitivity Num. of Devices
220
Figure 3: The SHD of different methods on synthetic data.
process follows: the number of devices (N) the number of event types (V), the sample size (m), the range of baseline intensity (μ range). the range of activation intensity (a range) and the time interval A. The ranges of the above parameters are: |N| {20, 40, 60, 80), V (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50, 100), m (50 000, 100 000, 150 000, 200 000, 250 000, 300000000 / range (x10-5) = (1. 3), (3, 5). (5, 7), (7,9), 9)}. a range (x10- 2) {(1, 2). (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5), (5,6))
and A = 21, 3, 4. 5}, where the default parameters are denoted in bold.
4.2.2 Results on Synthetic Data
Effectiveness, The Fl Score, SHD and SID of different methods on the synthetic data are shown in Figure 2 3 and respectively. Note that if the result for a particular bascline missing some points, it indicates that the method is unable to produce results within 1 hour GS'GCSL gives results problems with 100 event types in approximately 9 minutes.) under the setting of such points. Based on the results depicted in these 3 figures. SCGCSL exhibit superior effectiveness across all scenarios when compared to other baselines. Besides, from Figure 2 SCGSL demonstrates strong robustness across all parameters including both baseline activation intensity, the sample size of data, the time interval recording, the causal graph scale and the topological network scale. Such results indicate the robustness of GCGLL, i.c. GCGSL is expected to be effective in most scenarios.
7

---

PGCL
+- THPAR
-
ADM
CAUSE
++-
PCNCI
+
NLL
-4-
ACD
Semitivity of Range o(x10-)
Sensitiitty Range
Sensitivity to Samplesize
202
389
22
23
24
25
53
25
50000
23204
156800
20090
25009
3000
(b) Sensitivity
Sensitivity to Num. of Event
Sensitivity to Num. of Devices
259
203
2002
203
0
1599
195
59
Figure 4: The SID of different methods on synthetic data.
Table 1: The wall-clock execution time (s) of different methods on different scale of synthetic problems. The algorithm with the highest efficiency under each scale of problem is marked in bold, and "." indicates that results cannot be obtained within one hour.
Algorithms
5
10
15
20
25
50
100
S'GCSI.
2.48 100
8.67 X 10"
1.92 10a
5.48 10¹
8.64 10
2.11 102
5.42 10
TNPAR
3.61 10
6.40 x 102
7.82 10
9.93 x 102
1.46 x 10
ADM4
1.17 10a
2.11 x 10a
3.00 10a
4.46 x 10a
6.68 x 10a
2.51 x 10a
7.58 x 10a
CAUSE
6.88 10a
9.05 10a
1.21 10
1.66 10a
10
PCMCI
1.70 10"
2.58 102
8.91 10a
1.78 10
2.86 10
MLE_SGL
1.28 102
3.22 x 10a
6.04 10a
8.23 x 10a
1.08 x 10a
ACD
3.80 x 10a
9.90 x 10a
1.93 x 10a
2.35 x 10a
4.70 x 10a
Efficiency, The wall-clock execution time results of different methods on different scale of problems are presented in Table [ According to Table SCGCSL is able to produce results within 10 minutes even for problems scaling up to 100 event types. Worth noting that only two of the compared methods, namely SCGCSL and ADM4, are scalable to problems with 50 event types, both of which have nearly an order magnitude advantage on efficiency over other methods comparison. Besides, compared to ADM4, SCGCSL is more efficient on larger-scale problems (25 and 50), indicating its greater potential for application in large-scale real-world scenarios (Given that the real-world problem involved in this paper is with 38 event types).
Summary. To sum up, considering both effectiveness and efficiency, SCGCSL demonstrates clear advantages in effectiveness and scalability compared to other methods, thanks to its simple yet problem-adappe design. In the next subsection, this paper will study the performance of SCGCSL on real-world TNFD task in metropolitan wwwewlittteellteeeee..e.em telecommunication networks.
4.3
Real-World Experiments
4.3.1
Metropolitan Telecommunication Network Alarm Data
The real-world dataset utilized in this study was sourced from business setting in metropolitan telecommunication network collected by a multinational communications company and accessible through the NeurIPS 2023 competition of Causal Structure Learning from Event Sequences and Prior Knowledge (Phase real-world dataset). It comprises a sequence alarm records generated based on both topological network G and causal structure Gy. The topological network GN consists of
https://codalaee lisn. http::///coaaal....o....eeeeorre http://ppppaaaat/ooo/ottttttt/ta

---

Table 2: Performances of different methods on metropolitan telecommunication network alarm data. The algorithm perform best under each metric highlighted in bold.
Algorithms
Fl Score (f)
SHD (L)
SID (4)
ET(s) (1)
SCGSLL
0.40
60.616.59
130.2
737s
TNPAR
0.23
83.146.07
543162.6
4604s
ADM4
0.19.1..03
83.5
4751:50.4
861s
CAUSE
10.04
78.144.09
468.71.29.4
7209s
PCMCI
0.082
75.514.32
167.
9342s
MLE_ __GLL
0.19
77.2+1.77
4064:29.0
3253s
ACD
0.14
10716
655
1943s
65 devices, and the alarm records cover 38 types of alarm events, amounting to 492,877 alarm event records. It is worth noting that, due the equipment characteristics and as verified by experts, the collected timestamps of alarm events display specific time intervals.
4.3.2 Results on Metropolitan Telecommunication Network Alarm Data
The results of the experiments metropolitan telecommunication network alarm data can be found in Table where the F1 Score, SHD, SID and wall clock execution time (ET(s) for the compared methods reported. The results show that the methods incorporating the topological network GS'G,L, CAUSE and TNPAR) outperform those that rely on the i.idd. assumption with respect to F1 Score. This suggests that in the real-world lelecommunications networks, alarm events do indeed propagate through devices within the topological network, consistent with the expert's 's knowledge and model assumptions. However, both TNPAR and CAUSE take over hour (for CAUSE, needs 2 hours) to produce results, which is unacceptable in the race against time for TNFD, compared to just over ten minutes for GCSLL From the perspective of effectivvness, S*GCSL shows the highest Fl Score and the lowest SHD, indicating its relative insensitivity to weak Granger causal strength between event types, which may exhibit in real-world scenarios [Liu al. 2024 Additionally, S'GCSL achieves a good SID, only being slightly higher than PCMCI (however, this is because PCMCI often deduce very sparse causal graphs), which highlight S'GCSL's superior capability for causal inference (Peters and Bühlmann) 2015). Therefore, from comprehensive perspective, only S²GCSL has the potential to be applied and work well in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
This paper addresses the critical issue of fault diagnosis in large-scale telecommunication networks by proposing a simple method for efficient and scalable Granger causal structural learning from topological event sequences. The proposed approach, referred to SCGCSL, leverages a linear kernel to model the activation effects among different event types and uses gradient descent for the optimization of the likelihood function. This method simplifies the modeling and the optimization process to enhance the scalability and efficiency of inferring causal structures from large datasets of network alarms. Besides, S²GCSL also include the integration expert knowledge as constraints within the optimization process, ensuring the model's explainability via aligning with domain-specifie insights, which is crucial for practical applications. By conducting extensive experiments on both synthetic datasets and real-world data from metropolitan telccommunication network, we verify that SCGCSL significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of scalability or efficiency, while maintaining good effectiveness.
Despite the advancements presented in this paper, there are several limitations that suggest avenues for future research. Firstly, while S GCGCSL provides an efficient solution for large-scale datasets, its application is currently limited by the simplicity of its modeling approach. The linear kernel may not capture the full complexity of interactions in more dynamically evolving network environments where non-linear relationships and non-stationary patterns prevail. Additionally, further research could focus extending the applicability of GCCLL other types of networks, such power grids

---

or transport networks, where similar challenges in fault diagnosis are present. This would involve adapting the current framework to different kinds of event data and potentially different topologies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express the sincere thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62476091, 62106076).
References
Jérémie Bouttier, Philippe Di Francesco, and Emmanuel Guitter. Geodesic distance in planar graphs. Nuclear physics B, 663(3):535-567, 2003.
Brillinger and David R. Time series, point processes, and hybrids. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 22 (2):177-206, 1994.
Ruichu Cai, Siyu Wu, Jie Qiao, Zhifeng Hao, Keli Zhang, and Xi Zhang. THPs: Topological hawkes processes for learning causal structure on event sequences. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35(1))479-44) 2024.
Wei Chen, Ruichu Cai, Zhifeng Hao, Chang Yuan, and Feng Xie. Mining hidden non-redundant causal relationships in online social networks. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(11): 6913-6923, 2020.
Cox and David R. Some statistical methods connected with series of events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 17(2):129-157, 1955.
Seyda Ertekin, Cynthia Rudin, and Tyler H McCormick. Reactive point processes: A new approach to predicting power failures in underground electrical systems. The Annals of Applied Statistics, (1):122-144, 2015.
Clive WJ Granger. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 424 438, 1969.
Hawkes and Alan G. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, 58(1))83-90, 1971.
Isham, Valerie, Westcott, and Mark. A self-correcting point process. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, 83))335-347, 1979.
Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, San Diego, California, 2015.
Yuequn Liu, Ruichu Cai, Wei Chen, Jie Qiao, Yuguang Yan, Zijian Li, Keli Zhang, and Zhifeng Hao.
Tnpar: Topological neural poisson auto-regressive model for learning granger causal structure from event sequences. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, number 18, pages 20491-20499, 2024.
Sindy Löwe, David Madras, Richard S. Zemel, and Max Welling. Amortized causal discovery: Learning to infer causal graphs from time-series data. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pages 525, Eureka, California, 2022.
Gorana Mijatovic, Yuri Antonacci, Tatjana Loncar- Turukalo, Ludovico Minati, and Luca Faes. An information-theoretii framework measure the dynamic interaction between neural spike trains. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 68( (8)143347733481 2021.
Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Z. Yang. Zachary Vetito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library. In Advances the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pages 8024-8035, British Columbia, Canada, 2019.
10

---

Jonas Peters and Peter Bühlmann. Structural intervention distance for evaluating causal graphs. Neural Computation, 27(3):77-779, 2015.
David M. W. Powers. Evaluation: from precision, recall and f-measure to roc, informedness, markedness and correlation. CoRR, abs/2010. 16061, 2020.
Jakob Runge. Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1388-1397, Virtual, 2020.
Oleksandr Shchur, Ali Caner Türkmen, Tim Januschowski, and Stephan Günnemann. Neural temporal point processes: A review. In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4585-4593, Montreal, Canada, 2021.
Hongteng Xu, Mehrdad Farajtabar, and Hongyuan Zha. Learning granger causality for hawkes processes. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1717-1726, New York City, New York, 2016.
Wei Zhang, Thomas Kobber Panum, Somesh Jha, Prasad Chalasani, and David Page. CAUSE:
learning granger causality from event sequences using attribution methods. In Proceedings the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11235-11245, Virtual, 2020.
Xun Zheng, Bryon Aragam, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Eric P. Xing. Dags with NO TEARS: continuous optimization for structure learning. In Advances in the Annual Conference on Neurul Information Processing Systems 31, pages 9492-9503, Montreal, Canada, 2018.
Ke Zhou, Hongyuan Zha, and Le Song. Learning social infectivity in sparse low-rank networks using multi-dimensional hawkes processes. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 641-649 Scottsdale, Arizona, 2013.
Simiao Zuo, Haoming Jiang, Zichong Li, Tuo Zhao, and Hongyuan Zha. Transformer hawkes process. In Proceeding of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11692-11702 Virtual, 2020.

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or
NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question:
Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The paper discusses the limitations of the study when talking about future work in the conclusion section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those not discussed in the paper.
The authors encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested few datasets with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-texx system might not be used reliably provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairess.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
12

---

Answer:
[NA]
Justification:
The paper does not include theoretical results.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
The paper fully discloses all the information needed reproduce the main ex- perimental results the paper to the extent that affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper.
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, other means that appropriate to the research performed.
also be provided via detailed
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
(b) the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reprodueibility may be tricky in some cases, in which authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers have some path reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
13

---

The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new reproducible, they Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The code available at http://ggthtttccc///iiaaaaaaa/// The way of running the code is specified in README.md.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.co cc/
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https
/ httpppscccppullccguuudoueo Coaee//dddeSSbbmmcma ssi onPolicy) for more details.
The authors should provide instructions data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The detailed experimental settings specified in the Experiments section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: In the line graph, error bars are not introduced in order to maintain clarity of the presentation, while in the table, error bars are correctly reported.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confi- dence intervals, or statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall with given experimental conditions).
14

---

The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that out of range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The sufficient information on the computer resources is specified in the Experiments section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount compute required for each of the individual experimental runs well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make into the paper).
9. Code Of Ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics ht
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No. they should explain the special cireumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is special consid- eration due to laws or regulations their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: This paper aims address a Granger causal structural learning problem from topological event sequences in the context of telecommunication network fault diagnosis.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact why the paper does not address societal impact.
15

---

Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), faireess considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper deseribe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper poses no such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The real-world application data is properly credited in the paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset used and, possible, include URL.
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website). the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcone com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
16

---

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's s creators.
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not release new assets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details the dataset/code/moodl as part their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsoureing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/review based the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.
17


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "h7ISKu5qGF", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Dc6x", "summary": "This paper presents S2GCSL, a novel approach for Granger causal structural learning from topological event sequences in telecommunication networks. The methodology leverages a linear kernel to model interactions among event types and employs gradient descent for efficient optimization of the likelihood function. Unlike existing methods, S2GCSL integrates expert knowledge as constraints, enhancing the interpretability of results. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the approach's scalability and efficacy, addressing the challenges of fault diagnosis in large-scale, interconnected network environments.", "questions": "- The method is tested on a specific telecommunication network topology. How well does the S2GCSL method scale to different network topologies, such as hierarchical or mesh networks? Have there been any tests or validations on networks with varying levels of connectivity and complexity?\n- The paper uses a linear kernel to model activation interactions among event types. Have other types of kernels been considered or tested, such as polynomial or exponential kernels? What led to the decision to use a linear kernel specifically?\n- The synthetic data is generated using specific parameters and distributions. Have other synthetic data generation techniques been considered?", "limitations": "N/A", "rating": 7, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "- The paper presents a highly original approach to telecommunication network fault diagnosis (TNFD) through the development of S2GCSL, a scalable Granger causal structural learning method tailored for topological event sequences.\n- The originality is evident in the innovative problem formulation that leverages the unique structure of telecommunication networks, integrating expert knowledge constraints to enhance interpretability and address existing limitations in the field. \n- The quality of the research is underscored by a rigorous methodology, employing linear kernels and gradient descent optimization, and validated through extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets. \n- Clarity is maintained throughout the paper, with well-organized sections and clear explanations of complex concepts, making the work accessible to a broad audience. \n- The significance of this work is substantial, offering a robust and efficient solution to a critical problem in telecommunication networks, with potential applications extending to other domains such as power grids and transport networks. By addressing scalability and interpretability issues, the paper makes a notable contribution to the fields of causal inference and network fault diagnosis.", "weaknesses": "- The method is primarily tested on telecommunication networks. It would be helpful for the authors to discuss the scalability and applicability of the S2GCSL method to other types of network topologies, such as hierarchical, mesh, or dynamically evolving networks. Providing theoretical insights or preliminary experimental results on these different network structures would strengthen the argument for the method’s generalizability.\n- It would be better for the paper to discuss how the S2GCSL method can be adapted for online cases where data arrives continuously and decisions need to be made online. This limitation raises concerns about the method's applicability in scenarios requiring immediate fault diagnosis and response in telecommunication networks.\n- The paper specifies the computational resources used for the experiments; however, it does not address how the S2GCSL method would perform on less powerful hardware, since in practical deployment, there may be a need for each signal source to perform fault diagnosis online independently, and the computational resources of these signal sources are often limited. This raises concerns about the feasibility of deploying the method in resource-constrained environments, which may limit its practical applicability.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Dear Reviewer,\n\nThank you for your thorough and insightful review of our paper. We appreciate your positive evaluation of our work and your constructive feedback. We address your comments and questions as follows:\nWeaknesses:\n1. Applicability to Other Network Topologies:\nWe appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment. The topological network considered in our study is currently the most common setting in the field, consistent with the related works such as TMHP and TNPAR. In our specific problem domain, we have not observed cases of hierarchical or mesh networks. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the value of your suggestion and recognize that further exploration into these network structures could enhance the generalizability of our method.\n\n2.Adaptation for Online Cases:\nWhile our experiments were conducted using offline data, it is important to note that event sequences inherently possess temporal characteristics. Therefore, our method can be adapted to online scenarios to a certain extent, making it possible to integrate and apply our approach in real-time environments.\n\n3.Performance on Less Powerful Hardware:\nA significant advantage of S2GCSL over existing methods is its efficiency. Consequently, in scenarios with limited computational resources, our method naturally offers better performance. We are confident that the efficient nature of S2GCSL makes it more suitable for deployment in resource-constrained environments compared to other approaches.\n\nQuestions:\n1.Scalability to Different Network Topologies:\nOur experiments follow the latest and most common setups in this field, focusing on telecommunication network topologies as described in the paper. The hierarchical and mesh networks you mentioned are indeed significant research directions, and we will explore these in future work. Besides, our experiments involve randomly generated adjacency matrices for the topological network, which inherently varies the connectivity density and complexity of the topological network. \n\n2.Choice of Linear Kernel:\nOur method can also perform well with polynomial, and exponential kernels. However, we chose the linear kernel for its superior simplicity and efficiency.\n\n3.Synthetic Data Generation Techniques:\nThe synthetic data generation method we used is the most popular one in the current topological Granger causal discovery field. Notably, seminal works in the field, such as TNPAR and TMHP, also use this method to generate synthetic data.\n\nWe appreciate the opportunity to improve our paper based on your feedback. The suggested additions and clarifications will enhance the comprehensiveness and applicability of our work. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "MHodboGwKg", "reviewer": "Reviewer_B6jL", "summary": "The paper presents S2GCSL, a scalable and efficient method for Granger causal structural learning from topological event sequences, specifically designed for telecommunication network fault diagnosis. The approach uses a linear kernel to model interactions and employs gradient descent for optimization, incorporating expert knowledge as constraints to enhance interpretability. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the method's superior performance in scalability and efficacy compared to existing methods.", "questions": "1. The paper assumes that the counting processes within each time interval follow a Poisson process. How would the S2GCSL method perform if the underlying data generation process deviates from the Poisson assumption, for example, if the data exhibit over-dispersion or if the event occurrences are not memoryless?\n\n2. The proposed method assumes a stationary environment for modeling the Granger causality. How does the S2GCSL approach handle non-stationarity in the event sequences, where the underlying causal relationships might change over time? Are there mechanisms in place to adapt to such changes dynamically?\n\n3. The synthetic data is generated under specific assumptions. How well do these synthetic datasets represent real-world cases? What gaps still exist between the synthetic data generation process and real-world scenarios?", "limitations": "None", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 4, "strengths": "The paper demonstrates substantial strengths across multiple dimensions: originality, quality, clarity, and significance. \n\nIt introduces an original approach, S2GCSL, for Granger causal structural learning tailored for TNFD, effectively addressing the unique challenges posed by topological event sequences. This originality stems from the novel problem formulation that integrates topological relationships and expert knowledge into the causal learning process, distinguishing it from traditional i.i.d. assumptions. \n\nThe quality of the work is underscored by rigorous methodology and extensive experiments, which validate the scalability and efficiency of the proposed method on both synthetic and real-world datasets. \n\nThe clarity of the paper is commendable, with well-organized sections and easy-to-follow explanations of complex concepts, although there is some room for improvement in detailing certain methodological aspects and transitions between sections.\n\nThe significance of the research is substantial, offering a robust and interpretable solution to a critical real-world problem, with potential applications beyond telecommunications to other complex networked systems such as power grids and transportation networks. By addressing the limitations of existing methods, the paper makes a noteworthy contribution to the field of causal inference and network fault diagnosis.", "weaknesses": "Some of the assumptions in the paper may be a little bit strong. Firstly, the paper assumes that the counting processes within each time interval follow a Poisson process. This assumption may not hold in all real-world scenarios, especially in cases with over-dispersed data or memory effects. The authors should explore the robustness of their method to violations of this assumption and consider discussing potential adaptations or extensions that can handle more general or alternative event processes, such as over-dispersed Poisson or negative binomial distributions.\n\nSecondly, the S2GCSL method currently assumes stationarity in the causal relationships. In real-world networks, causal relationships may change over time. The authors should address this limitation by proposing potential extensions or methodologies for adapting the model to dynamic environments. For instance, incorporating online learning techniques or adaptive methods that can update the causal structure as new data arrives could significantly enhance the practical utility of the approach.\n\nBesides, comparing the results on synthetic data and metropolitan telecommunication network alarm data, it shows that S2GCSL suffers a performance drop when transitioning from synthetic to real-world cases. It would be beneficial for the authors to provide a more detailed analysis of this phenomenon.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Dear Reviewer,\n\nThank you for your thorough and insightful review of our paper. We appreciate your positive evaluation and constructive feedback. Here are our responses to your comments:\n\nWeaknesses:\n1.Assumption of Poisson Processes:\nThank you for highlighting this point. It is indeed a valuable consideration. In the field of TNFD, the assumption that events within each time interval follow a Poisson distribution is widely adopted. This assumption, while standard, is not overly restrictive. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance of exploring the robustness of S2GCSL to potential deviations from the Poisson assumption. Future work could extend our approach to handle more general event processes, such as over-dispersed Poisson or negative binomial distributions, to better accommodate various real-world scenarios.\n\n2.Assumption of Stationarity:\nWe appreciate your insightful observation. The assumption of stationarity is indeed common in the domain of Granger causal discovery. However, we recognize that this assumption might not hold in complex real-world scenarios. Adaptation to dynamic environments where causal relationships change over time is a significant challenge, and demand more advanced mathematical tools and methodologies, such as online learning techniques or adaptive algorithms, to dynamically update the causal structure as new data becomes available, thereby enhancing the practical utility of S2GCSL.\n\n3.Performance Drop from Synthetic to Real-World Data:\nThis is an excellent observation. Real-world data indeed presents challenges such as significant noise, sparse causal relationships, and local causality, which are less pronounced in synthetic datasets. These factors contribute to the performance drop, and addressing them is a priority for  designing more robust methods to handle these complexities.\n\nQuestions:\n1.Deviation from Poisson Assumption:\nThe Poisson assumption is a broadly accepted one in the TNFD field. In our specific problem domain, we have not observed significant instances of over-dispersion or non-memoryless event occurrences. Nonetheless, evaluating the performance of S2GCSL under such deviations is an important direction. We acknowledge that addressing scenarios with over-dispersed data or non-memoryless events could provide additional insights into the robustness of our method.\n\n2.Handling Non-Stationarity:\nThis is an excellent question. Currently, the S2GCSL method does not inherently handle non-stationarity. To adapt to non-stationary environments, it might be necessary to move beyond traditional Granger causality and develop techniques to identify and model true causal relationships for stable inference. \n\n3.Representativeness of Synthetic Data:\nThe synthetic data generation method we used is standard in this field, as employed in TMHP and TNPAR. However, we acknowledge the gap between synthetic and real-world data, particularly regarding noise, sparse causal relationships, and local causality. We aim to bridge this gap by further refining our methods to better handle these challenges.\n\nWe appreciate the opportunity to improve our paper based on your feedback. The suggested additions and clarifications will enhance the comprehensiveness and applicability of our work. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "diVRyztm0G", "reviewer": "Reviewer_6ZcE", "summary": "This paper presents S2GCSL, a novel method designed to efficiently identify the root causes of alarms in telecommunication networks by learning Granger causal graphs from topological event sequences. This method uses a linear kernel and gradient descent optimization, while incorporating expert knowledge as constraints to enhance interpretability. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that S2GCSL is highly scalable and effective, outperforming existing methods in terms of efficiency and robustness. The primary contributions include the introduction of a scalable causal learning approach, the integration of expert knowledge, and comprehensive validation of the method's applicability in real-world scenarios.", "questions": "1. The choice of hyperparameters like the geodesic distance k, regularization coefficients \\lambda_1 and \\lambda_2, and the pruning threshold \\rho are crucial for the performance of the method. I assume you have some techniques for adjusting these parameters, could you briefly explain them?\n\n2. The paper integrates several expert knowledges into the optimization process. However, if the expert knowledge is not the case, e.g., for the sparsity constraints, what is the graph density applied in the synthetic experiments? What if the actual graph is not sparse, how to modify S2GCSL to adapt the situation? \n\n\n3. I notice a phenomenon: In Table 1, as the problem scale increases, the efficiency of ADM4 gradually surpassed that of S2GCSL, but it fell behind again for the largest 50 and 100 node problems. Have you analyzed why this might be the case?", "limitations": "N/A", "rating": 7, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "This paper demonstrates strengths across multiple dimensions. Its originality lies in the novel formulation of Granger causal discovery for non-i.i.d. topological event sequences, the creative combination of a linear kernel with gradient-based optimization, and the innovative integration of expert knowledge as constraints. \n\nThe quality is evident in its solid theoretical foundation, comprehensive experimentation on both synthetic and real-world data, and thorough comparative analysis against state-of-the-art methods. \n\nThe paper's clarity shines through its well-structured presentation, clear problem definition, step-by-step methodology explanation, and effective use of visual aids. \n\nThe significance of the work is substantial, addressing critical scalability issues in analyzing large-scale telecommunication networks, offering practical applicability through the incorporation of domain knowledge, and potentially impacting broader fields involving topological event sequences. \n\nBy bridging the gap between theoretical Granger causality analysis and practical fault diagnosis in complex networks, S2GCSL represents a noteworthy advancement in the field, with implications for both research and real-world applications in network analysis and fault diagnosis.", "weaknesses": "The performance of the S2GCSL method relies on several hyperparameters, such as the geodesic distance k, regularization coefficients \\lambda_1 and \\lambda_2, and the pruning threshold \\rho. The paper should provide more detailed guidelines or heuristics for tuning these hyperparameters in various network settings. \n\nWhile integrating expert knowledge as constraints is a strength, the paper does not thoroughly discuss the potential impacts of incomplete or inaccurate expert knowledge. For example, dense causal graph.\n\nThe writing should be improved, some minor issues:\nImprove transitions between sections for better flow. For instance, adding a brief summary at the end of the \"Related Work\" section could help readers transition more smoothly to the \"Proposed Method\" section.\n\nEnsure all references are formatted according to the same style guide. For instance, \"[Granger and CWJ, 2001]\" seems a little wired.\n\nKeep consistent with the use of Fig., Figure, Table through the paper. For example, use abbreviation Fig. In the text but Table not abbreviated, and Figure in the caption. \nQuestions", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Dear Reviewer,\n\nThank you for your thorough and insightful review of our paper. We appreciate your positive evaluation and the time you have invested in providing such detailed feedback. Below are our responses to your comments:\n\nWeaknesses:\n1.Hyperparameter Tuning:\nThank you for raising this important point. We will provide more detailed guidelines for tuning hyperparameters in our discussion of the first question below.\n\n2.Impact of Incomplete or Inaccurate Expert Knowledge:\nThis is a valuable suggestion. We will address this concern in our response to the second question below.\n\n3.Writing and Formatting Improvements:\nWe appreciate your patience and detailed suggestions regarding the writing and formatting issues. We will address each typo and ensure all references and terms are consistently formatted. We will also enhance transitions between sections to improve the overall flow of the paper.\n\nQuestions:\n1.Hyperparameter Tuning:\nWe have indeed developed some techniques for adjusting these hyperparameters:\n-Geodesic Distance k: We typically set k=2, based on expert knowledge that cross-device alarm effects in large telecommunication networks generally do not exceed two geodesic distances. Besides, the impact of this parameter on the final result is minimal.\n-Regularization Coefficients \\lambda1 and \\lambda2: We estimate their magnitude through gradient methods by comparing the loss difference between two training steps with the difference in the regularization terms.\n-Pruning Threshold \\rho: After training, we print the entire weight matrix. Generally, there is an order of magnitude gap between the weights of edges and non-edges, allowing us to determine the appropriate threshold.\n\n2.Impact of Expert Knowledge:\nIn our specific application to telecommunication networks, the expert knowledge we employed, such as the sparsity and acyclicity of the causal graph, has been carefully considered and validated, making it solid within our setting. However, if the actual graph in a different application is not sparse, the assumptions and constraints used in S2GCSL would need to be adjusted to suit the specific characteristics of that problem. This would involve tailoring the assumptions to better reflect the nature of the underlying causal relationships, thereby ensuring the constraints remain relevant and accurate.\n\n3.Observation in Table 1:\nThis is an interesting observation. Our analysis suggests that the efficiency drop in ADM4 for large-scale problems is due to its high memory requirement for processing large matrices. In large networks, it is necessary to reduce the batch size to avoid exceeding memory limits, which compromises efficiency.\n\nThank you again for your high evaluation and thoughtful feedback. We will incorporate your suggestions to improve the clarity, rigor, and applicability of our paper. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing our work.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "BqGuB3Z3MX", "reviewer": "Reviewer_wGGW", "summary": "This paper presents S2GCSL (Simple yet Scalable Granger Causal Structural Learning), a novel method for learning Granger causal graphs from topological event sequences in telecommunication networks. The authors present a simple and scalable method that uses a linear kernel to model activation interactions between event types, and employ gradient descent to efficiently optimize the likelihood function. The method has the ability to incorporate expert knowledge as constraints during optimization, and is with high interpretability. This paper addresses the limitations of existing methods that either ignore topological relationships between devices or lack scalability. The effectiveness, efficiency, and scalability are verified by experiments on both synthetic and real-world telecommunication network fault diagnosis problems. The method can learn causal structures from large-scale alarm data, help identifying root causes of faults in complex telecommunication networks.", "questions": "1. As pointed by Weakness 1 and Weakness 2, how can S2GCSL be used in practical online setting where data arrives continuously?\n\n2. The authors claim that they could learn Granger causality efficiently on large-scale problems. Could the authors provide some clues about the scale range of problems in real-world scenarios? There are 38 nodes in the real-world dataset used in the experiments.", "limitations": "No.", "rating": 7, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "The authors present a novel method for Granger causal structural learning tailored specifically for TNFD. The novelty is manifested through innovative problem formulation that incorporates topological event sequences and integrates expert knowledge as constraints to enhance interpretability. \n\nThe method combining linear kernels with gradient descent optimization is solid. The experiments are sensible and supportive. The writing is overall good.\n\nThe most surprising thing to me is, this paper offers a scalable and efficient solution to a important real-world problem, with potential applications extending beyond telecommunications to other complex networked systems. I am excited to see that a causal learning method can be properly used in a practical scenario.", "weaknesses": "The S2GCSL is implemented on batch data. In practical telecommunication network, it is possibly required that fault diagnosis and causal learning are implemented in a real-time fashion. It will be better if the authors can discuss the ability of the proposed method to enable real-time processing and decision-making. For instance, consider an online learning setting instead that continuously updates the causal model as new data arrives could significantly enhance its practical ability.\n\nBesides, in real-world problems, it is possible that there are some missing entries or noise. I suggest the authors discuss how S2GCSL can handle such cases. \n\n\ntypos:\nAbstract: \"Recent years have seen a growing focus on a causal approach to...\" -> \"Recent years have seen a growing focus on causal approaches to\"\n\nLine 47: \"...relatively inefficiency\" -> \"...relative inefficiency\"", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Dear Reviewer,\n\nThank you for your detailed and thoughtful review of our paper. We greatly appreciate your positive evaluation and the time you have taken to provide us with constructive feedback. Below are our responses to your comments:\n\nWeaknesses:\n1.Real-Time Granger Causal Discovery:\nYou have raised a crucial point regarding the importance and challenge of real-time Granger causal discovery. While our current method focuses on batch data processing, the natural temporal attribute of event sequences allows our method to be adapted to real-time scenarios. Implementing real-time processing would involve additional considerations, such as handling small sample sizes inherent in streaming data. \n\n2.Handling Missing Entries and Noise:\nWe acknowledge that real-world data often includes missing entries and noise. Addressing these issues is essential for practical applicability. In future work, we plan to develop methods to handle these challenges, ensuring our approach remains robust and reliable under realistic conditions.\n\n3.Writing and Formatting Improvements:\nWe appreciate your patience and the effort you have put into pointing out the typos and formatting inconsistencies. We will correct each of these issues and ensure that the entire paper adheres to a consistent style guide, improving the overall quality of our writing.\n\nQuestions:\n1.Adaptation to Online Settings:\nAs discussed in the weaknesses, our method can naively be applied to streaming data due to the inherent temporal nature of event sequences. However, adapting the method to better handle the unique challenges of streaming data, such as evolving data distributions and limited data samples, could further enhance its effectiveness in real-time settings. \n\n2.Scale Range of Real-World Problems:\nBased on our knowledge, the scale of real-world telecommunication network problems typically involves around 30-50 nodes. This scale is reflective of the complexity encountered in practical scenarios, and our method has been validated to perform efficiently within this range.\n\nThank you again for your high evaluation and valuable feedback. Your insights will help us refine our work and ensure it meets the highest standards of clarity, rigor, and practical applicability.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper proposes S2GCSL for learning Granger causal structures from topological event sequences, particularly in the context of telecommunication network fault diagnosis (TNFD). The idea is considered novel and innovative (Dc6x, B6jL, 6ZcE), scalable and efficient (Dc6x, B6jL, 6ZcE), and significant for real-world network fault diagnosis (Dc6x, B6jL, wGGW). However, there are concerns about the method's applicability to different network topologies (Dc6x), its robustness to violations of underlying assumptions (B6jL), and its adaptability to online or real-time scenarios (wGGW). Fortunately, the authors have addressed the main issues in the authors' responses. The decision is acceptance.
Decision: Accept (poster)