Sebastian Vollmer

Yujing Ke, Kevin George, Kathan Pandya et al.

Identifying novel hypotheses is essential to scientific research, yet this process risks being overwhelmed by the sheer volume and complexity of available information. Existing automated methods often struggle to generate novel and evidence-grounded hypotheses, lack robust iterative refinement and rarely undergo rigorous temporal evaluation for future discovery potential. To address this, we propose BioDisco, a multi-agent framework that draws upon language model-based reasoning and a dual-mode evidence system (biomedical knowledge graphs and automated literature retrieval) for grounded novelty, integrates an internal scoring and feedback loop for iterative refinement, and validates performance through pioneering temporal and human evaluations and a Bradley-Terry paired comparison model to provide statistically-grounded assessment. Our evaluations demonstrate superior novelty and significance over ablated configurations representative of existing agentic architectures. Designed for flexibility and modularity, BioDisco allows seamless integration of custom language models or knowledge graphs, and can be run with just a few lines of code. We anticipate researchers using this practical tool as a catalyst for the discovery of new hypotheses.

Sumantrak Mukherjee, Mouad Elhamdi, George Mohler et al.

Spatiotemporal point processes (STPPs) are probabilistic models for events occurring in continuous space and time. Real-world event data often exhibit intricate dependencies and heterogeneous dynamics. By incorporating modern deep learning techniques, STPPs can model these complexities more effectively than traditional approaches. Consequently, the fusion of neural methods with STPPs has become an active and rapidly evolving research area. In this review, we categorize existing approaches, unify key design choices, and explain the challenges of working with this data modality. We further highlight emerging trends and diverse application domains. Finally, we identify open challenges and gaps in the literature.

Yahya Aalaila, Gerrit Großmann, Sumantrak Mukherjee et al.

Counterfactual reasoning, a cornerstone of human cognition and decision-making, is often seen as the 'holy grail' of causal learning, with applications ranging from interpreting machine learning models to promoting algorithmic fairness. While counterfactual reasoning has been extensively studied in contexts where the underlying causal model is well-defined, real-world causal modeling is often hindered by model and parameter uncertainty, observational noise, and chaotic behavior. The reliability of counterfactual analysis in such settings remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the limitations of counterfactual reasoning within the framework of Structural Causal Models. Specifically, we empirically investigate \emph{counterfactual sequence estimation} and highlight cases where it becomes increasingly unreliable. We find that realistic assumptions, such as low degrees of model uncertainty or chaotic dynamics, can result in counterintuitive outcomes, including dramatic deviations between predicted and true counterfactual trajectories. This work urges caution when applying counterfactual reasoning in settings characterized by chaos and uncertainty. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether certain systems may pose fundamental limitations on the ability to answer counterfactual questions about their behavior.