Computing Actual Causes for Neural Network Predictions
under Structured Causal Inputs

For a fixed candidate cause set $C$, assigning every remaining variable either the natural or contingency role specifies one possible contingency. $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ compactly represents many such assignments using partial role assignments, in which variables may remain undecided. A region $\mathcal{B}$ consists of a partial role assignment together with an interval $[\ell_{X},h_{X}]$ for each variable $X\in\vec{V}$, representing the values that $X$ may take across the contingencies captured by the region. For cause and contingency variables, this interval collapses to the corresponding fixed value. For natural variables, it is induced by the structural equation, while for undecided variables it is the hull of the natural and contingency possibilities.

We write $\mathcal{B}_{0}(C)$ for the initial region of candidate cause set $C$, in which the variables in $C$ take the cause role and all remaining variables are undecided. This region represents all possible contingencies for $C$. We next explain how its intervals are computed and propagated through the SCM.

To propagate intervals through the Boolean SCM, we use the continuous relaxations of Boolean functions as used in Petersen et al. (2022).

These relaxations are exact on Boolean inputs. Each relaxation is multilinear. As a result, the extrema of a single relaxed gate over its parents’ interval bounds are always attained at a corner of the corresponding interval box. This gives the tightest possible interval for that gate alone. On $[0,1]$, NOT, AND, and OR are additionally monotonic in each argument (NOT decreasing, and AND and OR increasing). For these gates, evaluating the appropriate interval endpoints suffices, whereas the non-monotonic XOR gate requires evaluating all four corners. The resulting map $\mathrm{bound}_{\mathrm{SCM}}$ processes the variables of $\mathcal{M}$ in topological order, applying the appropriate role rule using each variable’s already-computed parent bounds. $\mathrm{bound}_{\mathrm{NN}}$ then propagates the resulting feature bounds through $N$ via Interval Bound Propagation (Gowal et al. 2019). Affine layers are bounded using interval arithmetic, and each ReLU maps an interval $[\ell,h]$ to $[\max(0,\ell),\max(0,h)]$.

Our algorithm, presented in Alg. 1, computes minimal causes with minimum-cardinality contingencies that satisfy AC1–AC3.²²2Alg. 1 searches all candidate sizes $k=1,\ldots,|\vec{V}|$. The outer loop may be capped at $k_{\max}<|\vec{V}|$ to reduce computation, in which case completeness holds only for causes of size at most $k_{\max}$. AC1 is satisfied by assumption. The search only considers actual instances where $\varphi$ already holds ($y\in S$). The algorithm establishes AC2 and enforces AC3 by pruning or confirming regions based on their bounds $[\ell,h]$ on $N(\vec{x}^{\prime})$. A region can be pruned if $[\ell,h]\subseteq S$ (every input satisfies $\varphi$) and confirmed if $[\ell,h]\cap S=\emptyset$ (every input falsifies $\varphi$). For our threshold instantiation $S=[\tau,\infty)$, this specializes to $\ell\geq\tau$ and $h<\tau$ respectively. $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ encompasses the following steps:

1. 1.

   Enumerate candidates. We consider candidate cause sets $C\subseteq\vec{V}$ by increasing size $k=1,\ldots,|\vec{V}|$. Before searching a candidate, we check whether some already-confirmed cause $C^{\prime}$ is a strict subset of $C$. If so, $C$ cannot be minimal, and we skip it without further computation. Because candidates are visited in increasing order of size, this check guarantees AC3 minimality of every cause set we report. For a surviving candidate $C$, we initialize a queue $Q$ with the single region $\mathcal{B}_{0}(C)$, in which the variables in $C$ take the cause role and every other variable is undecided. This region represents all possible contingencies for the intervention on $C$.

2. 2.

   Compute bounds and classify. We repeatedly pop a region $\mathcal{B}$ from $Q$. Let $W=\mathrm{contingency}(\mathcal{B})$ be the variables already assigned the contingency role. If $W^{*}\neq\bot$ and $|W|\geq|W^{*}|$, no refinement of $\mathcal{B}$ can yield a smaller contingency, so we prune it. Otherwise, $\mathrm{bound}_{\mathrm{SCM}}$ propagates the intervals induced by $\mathcal{B}$ through $\mathcal{M}$ to obtain bounds $[\vec{\ell},\vec{h}]$ on every endogenous variable.We then propagate these feature bounds through $N$ via $\mathrm{bound}_{\mathrm{NN}}$ to obtain bounds $[\ell,h]$ on $N$ for all assignments represented by $\mathcal{B}$. If $[\ell,h]\subseteq S$, then every input in $\mathcal{B}$ still satisfies $\varphi$, so no contingency in this region can falsify it, and we prune $\mathcal{B}$. If $[\ell,h]\cap S=\emptyset$, every input represented by $\mathcal{B}$ falsifies $\varphi$, so we confirm $\mathcal{B}$. Resolving all remaining undecided variables to natural yields the smallest witness contingency represented by $\mathcal{B}$, which we retain only if it is smaller than the best one found for $C$ so far. Otherwise, the bounds are inconclusive, and we refine $\mathcal{B}$.

3. 3.

   Refine. To refine an inconclusive region, we select one undecided variable using a branching heuristic (see Sec. 4, App. E.10), and split $\mathcal{B}$ into two children: one where that variable is resolved to natural, and one where it is resolved to contingency. Both children are added back to $Q$. Once $Q$ is empty, if a witness contingency was found for $C$, we add the pair $(C,W^{*})$ to $\mathcal{C}^{*}$.

This yields two guarantees: (i) candidate ordering enforces AC3, and (ii) continuing the search after the first witness contingency while pruning regions whose committed contingency is no smaller than the current best witness yields a minimum-cardinality contingency (see Rem. 2 in App. C).

Recall $S=[\tau,\infty)$ with $\tau=0.5$ for this example. Initially, $X_{1}$ is fixed to cause and every other variable is left undecided. The initial bounds $[0.08,1.00]$ are inconclusive (neither $[\ell,h]\subseteq S$ nor $[\ell,h]\cap S=\emptyset$), so the search branches on $X_{2}$, and both children branch again on $X_{3}$ for the same reason. All four resulting leaves have bounds entirely in $S$ and satisfy $\varphi$, so $\{X_{1}\}$ is pruned entirely. For $\{X_{3}\}$ and $\{X_{4}\}$, fixing the singleton leaves nothing else undetermined, so both bounds resolve to a single point without branching: $0.41$ (outside $S$) confirms $\{X_{3}\}$ as a cause, while $\{X_{4}\}$’s point lies in $S$ and is pruned. $\{X_{5}\}$ (bounds $[0.35,0.83]$) and $\{X_{2}\}$ are both inconclusive and branch once on $X_{4}$: for $\{X_{5}\}$ both children’s bounds lie in $S$ and are pruned, while for $\{X_{2}\}$ the natural child is pruned but the contingency child’s bounds lie outside $S$, falsifying $\varphi$ and confirming $\{X_{2}\}$ as a second cause with witness contingency $\{X_{4}\}$. Concretely, intervening on negative cashflow alone does not flip the classification unless unsecured exposure is also held at its actual value $X_{4}{=}0$, the contingency. This leaves $\{X_{2}\}$ and $\{X_{3}\}$ as confirmed causes of size $k=1$.

Every candidate of size $k=2,\ldots,5$ is either a superset of $\{X_{2}\}$ or $\{X_{3}\}$ and skipped, or checked and pruned, so no cause larger than $k=1$ exists for our running example: $\{X_{3}\}$ (high expenses) and $\{X_{2}\}$ (negative cashflow) with witness contingency $\{X_{4}\}$ (unsecured exposure) are the only two minimal causes. The minimal sufficient set for this instance is the single set $\{X_{2},X_{3}\}$, exactly the union of the two causes. Computing actual causes is more informative here: it identifies $X_{2}$ and $X_{3}$ as independently responsible, each with its own witness contingency, rather than only the combined sufficient set, which does not reveal that either feature alone already suffices to flip the classification.

App. B works through a different context on the same SCM that does produce a cause of size $k=2$.

theoremthmcorrectness Given an SCM $\mathcal{M}$, NN $N$, and $N$’s actual input $\vec{x}$ with $N(\vec{x})\in S$, Alg. 1 terminates. It returns exactly the set of all actual causes of $\varphi$ (characterized by AC1–AC3).³³3If the maximum cause size is capped at $k_{\max}<|\vec{V}|$, this guarantee holds only for actual causes with $|C|\leq k_{\max}$. See App. C.1, Rem. 4. For each returned cause, it also returns a minimum-cardinality contingency. Please refer to the App. C.1 for the full proof of Thm. 3.2.

For a candidate cause $C$ with $|C|=k$, the search resolves $|\vec{V}|-k$ non-cause variables. In the worst case, the resulting binary search tree contains $\sum_{i=0}^{|\vec{V}|-k}2^{i}=2^{|\vec{V}|-k+1}-1$ regions, including the initial region. Hence, the overall number of regions is at most $\sum_{k=1}^{|\vec{V}|}\binom{|\vec{V}|}{k}\left(2^{|\vec{V}|-k+1}-1\right)<2\cdot 3^{|\vec{V}|}$, which is $O(3^{|\vec{V}|})$. See App. D for details.

Following the benchmark protocol of Aryan, Chockler, and Mousavi (2026), we generate Barabási–Albert (BA)-style preferential-attachment DAGs (Barabási and Albert 1999) by adding nodes sequentially and allowing each new node to select only earlier nodes as parents. This yields a small number of hub variables and many sparsely connected variables. Each endogenous variable is assigned an AND or OR structural equation with equal probability ($p=0.5$), and each incoming edge is independently negated with probability $p=0.2$. We also run the same experiments on DAGs generated using the Erdős–Rényi (ER) model (Erdős and Rényi 1959) and observe consistent runtime trends (App. E.4).

To obtain a nontrivial task over SCM-generated inputs, we use a frozen, randomly initialized multilayer perceptron (MLP) with two hidden layers as a teacher network (Goldt et al. 2020). We normalize its output to $[0,1]$, add Gaussian noise, and train a student NN to approximate it. Given the actual output $y$, we set the acceptance set to $S=[y-\varepsilon,y+\varepsilon]$, with $\varepsilon=0.3$. Thus, an intervention yielding output $y^{\prime}$ falsifies $\varphi$ if $|y^{\prime}-y|>\varepsilon$.

Each configuration is evaluated on three independently generated graphs and three sampled contexts per graph, yielding nine runs per configuration.

On every instance completed by both methods, $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ and exhaustive BF return exactly the same set of minimal causes.

We vary the number of nodes from 6 to 34 in increments of 2, compute all minimal causes, and use the m4 architecture⁴⁴4Tab. 2 (App. E.2) lists the full range of tested architectures. ($256\times 128\times 64\times 32$). $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ completes all runs up to $n=28$, with median runtime increasing from 3.6s to 34.5s. At $n=30$, 33% of runs time out; at $n=32$, 88.9% time out; and all runs time out from $n=34$. BF completes all runs up to $n=20$ but times out from $n=22$ onward. At $n=20$, its median runtime is 92.0s, vs. 5.8s for $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$. ILP times out on one run at $n=6$, on 89% of runs at $n=8$, and on all runs from $n=10$. ACI is fastest for small graphs ($n\leq 10$, median below 3s), but its runtime rises sharply at $n=12$ and it times out on the majority of runs from $n=14$ and on all runs from $n=16$. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests show that $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ is significantly faster than ILP and ACI at almost every tested $n$ ($p<0.05$), while the difference from BF becomes significant from $n=18$ onward. Across the 115 completed $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ runs, 68.7% yield multiple minimal causes, 13.0% yield exactly one, and 18.3% yield none.

Additional experiments confirm the importance of causal structure and show that $\textsc{CausEx}_{\textsc{BaB}}$ remains robust across network, graph, and search settings.