Dhruv Vansraj Rathore

Abhinna Sundar Samantaray, Finnja Annika Fluhrer, Dhruv Saini et al.

Astrology has long been used to interpret human personality, estimate compatibility, and guide social decision-making. Zodiac-based systems in particular remain culturally influential across much of the world, including in South Asian societies where astrological reasoning can shape marriage matching, naming conventions, ritual timing, and broader life planning. Despite this persistence, astrology has never established either a physically plausible mechanism or a statistically reliable predictive foundation. In this work, we examine zodiac-based personality prediction using a controlled machine-learning framework. We construct a synthetic dataset in which individuals are assigned zodiac signs and personality labels drawn from a shared pool of 100 broadly human traits. Each sign is associated with a subset of 10 common descriptors, intentionally overlapping with those assigned to other signs, thereby reproducing the ambiguity characteristic of practical astrological systems. We then train Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and neural-network classifiers to infer personality labels from zodiac-based features and nuisance covariates. Across all experiments, predictive performance remains at or near random expectation, while shuffled-label controls yield comparable accuracies. We argue that the apparent success of astrology arises not from measurable predictive structure, but from trait universality, category overlap, cognitive biases such as the Barnum effect and confirmation bias, and the interpretive flexibility of astrologers and pundits. We conclude that zodiac-based systems do not provide reliable information for predicting human behavior and instead function as culturally durable narrative frameworks. This paper is intended as a humorous academic exercise.

Saptarshi Saha, Dhruv Vansraj Rathore, Utpal Garain

Most counterfactual inference frameworks traditionally assume acyclic structural causal models (SCMs), i.e. directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). However, many real-world systems (e.g. biological systems) contain feedback loops or cyclic dependencies that violate acyclicity. In this work, we study counterfactual inference in cyclic SCMs under shift-scale interventions, i.e., soft, policy-style changes that rescale and/or shift a variable's mechanism.

Saptarshi Saha, Dhruv Vansraj Rathore, Soumadeep Saha et al.

Quantifying the causal influence of input features within neural networks has become a topic of increasing interest. Existing approaches typically assess direct, indirect, and total causal effects. This work treats NNs as structural causal models (SCMs) and extends our focus to include intrinsic causal contributions (ICC). We propose an identifiable generative post-hoc framework for quantifying ICC. We also draw a relationship between ICC and Sobol' indices. Our experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that ICC generates more intuitive and reliable explanations compared to existing global explanation techniques.