IntroductionHierarchical temporal structures are pervasive in time series data such as weather records and stock prices. These structures arise from latent processes operating at multi-level abstraction-for example, seasonal, monthly, and daily variations in climate data. Understanding the hierarchical latent dynamics underlying time series remains a fundamental challenge [68,4,70] and has received growing attention. The core of this problem is the identification of latent processes evolving across different levels of abstraction from observed data.To identify the temporal latent process, several methods have considered Independent Component Analysis (ICA) [30,8,27] to identify latent variables. To extend to nonlinear scenarios, researchers use various assumptions, such as sufficient changes [37,72,47,77], to ensure the independent variation of latent variables. Specifically, some approaches leverage auxiliary variables [18,19,28,29,37,31] to achieve strong identifiability of latent variables. In the context of time-series data, others utilize historical observations as surrogates for historical latent variables to induce sufficient changes [73,29].Figure 1: Illustration of data generation process with hierarchical temporal dynamics that consists of L-layer latent variables. The observed variables x t are generated by x t = g(z 1  t , ϵ 0 t ), where g and ϵ 0t denote the nonlinear mixing function and noise, respectively. And z l t are influenced by its time-delayed and hierarchical parents z l t-1 and z l+1 t , l ≤ L-1, respectively.Recent advances have further tackled the challenge of identifying latent dynamics with instantaneous dependencies under assumptions like interventions [54], grouping observations [57], and the sparse causal influence [48]. Please refer to more discussion of the related works and real-world implications of hierarchical latent dynamics in Appendix E and C, respectively. Despite recent advances, these methods predominantly assume a single layer of latent variables and will fail to identify hierarchical latent dynamics. As a result, under a hierarchical structure, using historical observation as a surrogate to leverage the sufficient changes condition is not applicable anymore since the high-level variables will introduce noise. Consequently, methods under the single-layer assumption [28,74] face challenges in recovering the joint distribution of hierarchical latent variables from single-timestep observations, particularly when the observations are derived from lower-level variables. This limitation prevents these methods from using historical observations as surrogates to meet the sufficient changes condition, resulting in suboptimal identifiability.The point above highlights the urgent need for temporal causal representation learning with hierarchical latent dynamics is to recover the joint distribution of hierarchical latent variables. Interestingly, we find that the distribution of latent variables can be uniquely determined with the help of three temporally adjacent observations [23,25]. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even with hierarchical structures in the latent processes, the joint distribution of multi-layer latent variables can be identified by incorporating additional temporal contextual observations. Therefore, we can derive a hierarchical dynamic process underlying the observed data via the natural sparsity of the hierarchical latent structure, facilitating time series generation grounded in a causal understanding of the process.Based on this insight, we therefore establish a Causally Hierarchical Latent Dynamic (CHiLD) identification framework by harnessing the temporal contextual observations and natural sparsity of the hierarchical structure among latent variables. Additionally, to connect the theoretical results with a practical algorithm, we develop a time series generative model based on a variational autoencoder with a contextual encoder and normalizing flow-based hierarchical prior networks. Specifically, to identify the joint distribution of multi-layer latent variables, the contextual encoder transforms the historical, current, and future observations into the hierarchical latent variables at the current timestamp. Moreover, to enforce the independent noise condition of hierarchical latent dynamics, the normalizing flow-based hierarchical prior networks determine the prior distribution of hierarchical latent variables. These two specialized modules together boost the identification of hierarchical temporal causal representation learning. We validate our approach through simulation experiments to demonstrate identifiability and evaluate its performance on eleven time-series generation benchmarks for both generation quality and controllability. The impressive quantitative and qualitative results underscore the effectiveness of our method.
Preliminaries
Hierarchical Data Generation ProcessWe begin with the time series generation process with a hierarchical latent causal process as shown in Figure 1  4 . To facilitate clarity, we adopt the terminology widely used in ICA literature like observed variables x t , latent variables z t , and the mixing function g. In the context of hierarchical latent dynamics, we letz t = {z 1 t , • • • , z l t , • • • , z L t }, where z l t ∈ R n denotes the l-th layer latent variables. Suppose that we have observed variables with discrete timestamps X = {x 1 , • • • , x t , • • • , x T }, where x t ∈ R n is only generated from first layer latent variables z 1 t ∈ Z ⊆ R n (low-level latent variables) via a nonlinear mixing function g and independent noise ϵ 0 t . Mathematically, we have:x t = g(z 1 t , ϵ 0 t ).(1)For the l-th layer, i-th dimension latent variable at t timestamp z l t,i , l ∈ {1, • • • , L -1} is generated via the latent causal procedure, which is assumed to be related to time-delayed parent Pa d (z l t,i ) and the hierarchical parents Pa h (z l t,i ), respectively. Formally, it can be written via a structural equation model as follows z l t,i = f l i (Pa d (z l t,i ), Pa h (z l t,i ), ϵ l t,i ), with ϵ l t,i ∼ p ϵ l t,i ,where ϵ l t,i is the temporally and spatially independent noise sampled from p ϵ l t,i . And the L-th layer latent variables z L t is only related to the time-delayed parent Pa d (z L t,i ), which is formalized as follows:z L t,i = f L i (Pa d (z L t,i ), ϵ L t,i ), with ϵ L t,i ∼ p ϵ L t,i .(3)Note that the hierarchical structure among latent variables of data generation process in Figure 1 and Equation ( 1)-( 3) is naturally sparse, since there are no direct causal relations between z l t and z l+1 t-1 , meaning that z l t is independent of z l+1 t-1 conditional on other latent variables. Based on the generation process above, we further define the block-wise identifiability and componentwise identifiability of latent variables in Definition 1 and 2, respectively. Definition 1 (Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t [69]). The block-wise identifiability of z l t ∈ R n means that for ground-truth z l t , there exists ẑl t ∈ R n and an invertible function h : R n → R n , such that z l t = h(ẑ l t ). Definition 2 (Component-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t,i [42]). The component-wise identifiability of z l t ∈ R n is that for each z l t,i , i ∈ {1, • • • , n}, there exists a corresponding estimated component ẑl t,j , j ∈ {1, • • • , n} and an invertible function h l i : R → R, such that z l t,i = h l i (ẑ l t,j ).
Why previous theoretical results can hardly identify the hierarchical latent variables?Based on the data generation process described in Equations ( 1)-(3), we provide a detailed explanation of why previous methods fail to identify hierarchical latent variables. First, the previous methods for temporal causal representation learning [28,29,73,74] usually assume that the observed variables x t are generated from a single-layer latent variables z t via an invertible and deterministic mixing function g, e.g., x t = g(z t ), implying that we can recover the distribution of latent variables from observed variables by matching the marginal distribution of observed variables. Sequentially, these methods can leverage the historical observation x t-1 as a surrogate for z t-1 to meet the sufficient change condition and further achieve identifiability.However, when the data generation process follows a hierarchical latent dynamics (we suppose there are two latent layers for convenience), since the low-level latent variables, e.g., z 1 t are generated from the high-level latent variables e.g., z 2 t , and noise ϵ 1 t , we cannot recover the joint distribution of z t = {z 1 t , z 2 t } due to the additional noise ϵ 1 t . Therefore, previous methods cannot consider x t-1 as the surrogate of z t-1 , and hence cannot achieve identification under the hierarchical latent dynamics.
Identifiability of Hierarchical Latent VariablesIn this section, we show how to identify the hierarchical latent dynamics under temporal contextual observations. Specifically, we first establish the block-wise identifiability results of multi-layer latent variables z t = {z 1 t , • • • , z L t } with 2L + 1 adjacent observed variables (Theorem 1). Sequentially, we leverage the estimated multi-layer latent variables ẑt as a surrogate of the true variables z t to meet the sufficient change condition. Then we leverage the connection between natural sparsity of the hierarchical structure among latent variables and cross derivative [52] to achieve block-wise identifiability for latent variables within each layer (Theorem 2). Finally, we further exploit the previous results [74] to achieve component-wise identifiability of latent variables z l t,i (Lemma 1).
Identifiability of Multi-layer latent variables z tIn this subsection, we show the identifiability results of multi-layer latent variables z t . For a better explanation, we first provide the definition of the linear operator [23,25] as follows. Definition 3 (Linear Operator [23,11]). Consider two random variables a and b with support A and B, the linear operator L b|a is defined as a mapping from a probability function p a in some function space F(A) onto the probability function p b = L b|a • p a in some function space F(B),F(A) → F (B) : p b = L b|a • pa = A p b|a (•|a)pa(a)da.(4)Based on the definition of linear operator, we show that the multi-layer latent variables z t = {z 1 t , • • • , z L t } can be block-wise identifiability as follows. Theorem 1. (Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z t in Hierarchical Latent Process.) Suppose the observed and L-layer latent variables follow the data generation process in Figure 1. By matching the true joint distribution of 2L + 1 number of adjacent observed variables, i.e., {x t-L , • • • , x t , • • • , x t+L }, we further make the following assumptions:(i) The joint distribution of x, z, and their marginal and conditional densities are bounded and continuous. (ii) The linear operatorsL xt+1,••• ,x t+L |zt and L x t-L ,••• ,xt-1|xt+1,••• ,x t+L are injective for bounded function space. (iii) For all z t , z ′ t ∈ Z t with z t ̸ = z ′ t , the set {x t : p(x t |z t ) ̸ = p(x t |z ′ t )} has positive probability. Suppose that we have learned (ĝ, f , p ε) to achieve Equations ( 1) and ( 2), then the latent variablesz t = {z 1 t , • • • , z L t } are block-wise identifiable.Intuition and Proof Sketch. Compared with previous works that leverage spectral decomposition to achieve identifiability [23,14], we do not require the monotonicity and normalization assumption [23] (see Appendix B.4) and quantitatively formulate the relations between required observations and the latent layers. Intuitively, Theorem 1 shows that at least 2L + 1 adjacent observations are the minimal information for the identification of z t under the data generation process described in Equations ( 1)-(3). This is because of the injectivity of the two operators, where an operator that maps some functional space onto lower dimensions cannot be injective by Definition 3. The proof can be summarized in the two steps. First, by using the fact that {x t-L , • • • , x t-1 }, {x t }, and {x t+1 , • • • , x t+L } are conditionally independent given z t , we can construct an eigenvalueeigenfunction decomposition regarding the integral operator. Next, by leveraging the relationship between the uniqueness of spectral decomposition (Theorem XV.4.3.5 [11]), latent variables are block-wise identifiable when the marginal distribution of observed variables is matched.Implication. Theorem 1 demonstrates that temporal contextual observations can be used to identify the joint distribution of multi-layer latent variables, even when additional noises are introduced into the generation process from high-level latent variables to observations. As an additional benefit, the same identification result can be achieved even when the mixing process from latent to observed variables is non-deterministic and involves independent noise. Discussion on Assumptions. To clarify our theoretical results, we provide an explanation of these assumptions and their relevance to real-world scenarios. 1) The assumption of the bounded and continuous conditional densities is standard in the literature on the identification of latent variables under measurement error [23,25], meaning that the observed and latent variables are bounded and change continuously. For example, in the financial markets example, the stock prices (observed variables) and the interest rates (latent variables) usually change continuously. And their values are usually within a certain reasonable range. 2) The injective linear operator assumption is also used in the literature on the identification of latent variables under measurement error [14]. (More examples of this condition can be found in Appendix B.3). Intuitively, an injective operator L b|a implies that there is enough variation in the density of b for different distributions of a. Using the same financial markets example, the injectivity of L xt+1,••• ,x t+L |zt means that the profitability (i.e., z t ) of a company has sufficient influence on the stock prices of that company (i.e., x t+1 , • • • , x t+L ). And L x t-L ,••• ,xt-1|xt+1,••• ,x t+L means that the stock price of a company has a significant impact on its future stock price. Therefore, this assumption is easy to meet in practice. 3) The third assumption means that the density of x t can be different when the values of z t are different, which is also easy to meet. For example, under different interest rates, the variance of the stock price is usually different.
Identifiabiliy of Single-layer Latent Variables z l tTheorem 2. (Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t in any l-th Layer.) For a series of observed variables x t ∈ R n and estimated latent variables ẑl t ∈ R n with the corresponding process fi , P (ε), ĝ, suppose that the process subject to observational equivalence x t = ĝ(ẑ 1 t , ε0 t ). We let c t ≜ {z t-1 , z t } ∈ R 2×L×n and that M ct be the variable set of two consecutive timestamps and the corresponding Markov network respectively, and further employ following assumptions:(i) (Smooth and Positive Density [74,42]): The conditional probability function of the latent variables c t is smooth and positive. (ii) (Sufficient Variability) [48]: Denote |M ct | as the number of edges in Markov network M ct . Letw(m) = ∂ 3 log p(c t |z t-2 ) ∂c 2 t,1 ∂z t-2,m ,• • • , ∂ 3 log p(c t |z t-2 ) ∂c 2 t,2n ∂z t-2,m ⊕ ∂ 2 log p(c t |z t-2 ) ∂c t,1 ∂z t-2,m ,• • • , ∂ 2 log p(c t |z t-2 ) ∂c t,2n ∂z t-2,m ⊕ ∂ 3 log p(c t |z t-2 ) ∂c t,i ∂c t,j ∂z t-2,m (i,j)∈E(Mc t ) ,(5)where ⊕ denotes concatenation operation and (i, j) ∈ E(M ct ) denotes all pairwise indice such that c t,i , c t,j are adjacent inM ct . For m ∈ [1, • • • , n], there exist 4n + |M ct | different values of z t-2,m, such that the 4n + |M ct | values of vector functions w(m) are linearly independent.Then for latent variables z l t at the l-th layer, z l t is block-wise identifiable without permutation, i.e., there exists ẑl t and an invertible functionh l : R n → R n , such that z l t = h l (ẑ l t ).Intuition and Proof Sketch. Proof can be found in Appendix A3. This proof is built upon the results of Theorem 1, since we cannot achieve the joint distribution of latent variables in the hierarchical structure. By considering latent variables c t = {z t-1 , z t } from two adjacent timestamps, the cross-layer latent variables are conditionally independent, e.g,z l t,i ⊥ ⊥ z l+1 t-1,j |c t \{z l t,i , z l+1 t-1,j }, ∀i, j ∈ {1, • • • , n}. And such conditional independence implies ∂ 2 log p(ct) ∂z l t,i ∂z l+1 t-1,j= 0 by leveraging the connection between conditional independence and cross derivatives [52]. Moreover, since we have achieved the blockwise identifiability of z t , we can leverage the contextual observation as the surrogates of historical latent variables and further introduce the sufficient variability assumption [48]. As a result, we can construct a full-rank linear system with the unique solution. By further exploiting the hierarchical temporal structure of latent variables, we can show that the estimated ẑl t can be block-wise identifiable without permutation, i.e, there exists an invertible function h l : R n → R n , such that z l t = h l (ẑ l t ). Compared with Previous Theoretical Results. Although both [48] and Theorem 2 use the sparsity influence of latent dynamics to achieve identifiability, yet our contribution goes substantially further. First, IDOL [48] assumes an invertible mixing procedure, which begins from matching the marginal distribution of x t . While our method allows that partial latent variables contribute to the observations with a noise-contaminated mixing procedure, so it is built on the block-wise identification from Theorem 1. Second, IDOL shows the component-wise identifiability with permutation. However, our CHiLD shows the block-wise identifiable without permutation (please find it at Lemma A2 of Appendix B.5). This result is stronger than that of IDOL. We further show that each component within each layer z l t,i is component-wise identifiable. Discussion on Assumptions. We further explain the assumptions and their real-world implications. First, the smooth and positive density assumption is a commonly adopted assumption in nonlinear ICA studies [37,74], implying that the latent variables can change continuously based on historical information. This assumption can be easily met in real-world scenarios like financial markets. For example, the exchange rates usually change smoothly over time.Second, the sufficient variability assumption is widely employed in existing results on the identifiability of temporally causal representation learning [73,74,5,48], reflecting the changeability of latent variables. Take stock price forecasting as an example, the latent variables may represent quantitative factors such as the price-to-earnings ratio, trading volume spread at different time steps. The linear independence of the latent variables implies that changes in one factor, such as the price-to-earnings ratio, cannot be linearly represented by trading volume. Moreover, while the sufficiency assumption forms the foundation of identifiability theory, it is not overly restrictive in practical applications. v l,m = ∂ 2 ln P (z l t,1 |û) (∂z l t,1 ) 2 , • • • , ∂ 2 ln P (z l t,n |û) (∂z l t,n ) 2 , ∂ ln P (z l t,1 |û) ∂z l t,1 , • • • , ∂ ln P (z l t,n |û) ∂z l t,n .(6)Then for i-th latent variable z l t,i at the l-th layer, z l t,i is component-wise identifiability, i.e., there exists ẑl t,j and an invertible function h l t : R → R, such that ẑl t,j = h l t (z l t,i ).Discussion. Please refer to the proof in Appendix B.7. Compared with existing works [28,29,74,42] that also leverage similar assumptions (i.e., conditional independence and sufficient variability assumptions) to achieve component-wise identification, the main difference is that our method simultaneously leverage the time-delayed and hierarchical parents to meet the sufficient variability condition instead of domain or historical information.
Comparison with Existing Results of Causal Representation LearningCompared to recent methods for causal representation learning, the proposed CHiLD model better aligns with real-world scenarios from multiple perspectives, as summarized in Table 1. Specifically, TDRL [74] and PCL [29] struggle to handle time-series data with hierarchical latent dynamics and noisy mixing processes. Although CaRiNG [5] also leverages temporal contextual information for identification, it remains limited as it fails to account for noisy mixing processes and cannot identify latent dynamics with instantaneous dependencies. More recently, Zhang et al. [77] and Li et al. [48] have employed sparse causal influences to identify latent variables with instantaneous dependencies. However, these methods neither address the challenges posed by noisy mixing processes nor identify latent variables within hierarchical structures. Another closely related work, Fu et al. [14], also utilizes unique eigenvalue-eigenfunction decomposition to achieve identifiability. However, this method is specifically designed for causal discovery in climate data and does not account for hierarchical latent dynamics. In contrast, our model extends previous results by establishing the relationship between the minimal required temporal observations and the size of hierarchical latent variables.
ApproachIn this section, we propose the VAE-based model [39,22] for time series generation as shown in Figure 2. Specifically, we begin by estimating the hierarchical latent variables using a contextual encoder which processes a sequence of observations, x t-L:t+L5 , and outputs the estimated latent variables ẑt . Sequentially, the reconstructed observations are generated from the latent space via a step-wise decoder, which uses ẑt to produce xt .! x ! ! x " Dec Enc 𝑧 ! ! 𝑧 ! " 𝑧 ! # x ! x " Dec Enc 𝑧 " ! 𝑧 " " 𝑧 " # 𝑓 ! 𝑓 # Hierarchical Latent Variables 𝑓 "
Contextual Hierarchical EncoderStep-wise Decoder… … … ! x $ x # Dec Enc 𝑧 $ ! 𝑧 $ " 𝑧 $ # … 𝑓 ! 𝑓 # 𝑓 " … … … 𝑧 %&! # 𝑧 %&! ! 𝑧 %&! #&! … Hierarchical Prior Networks 𝑧 % ! 𝑧 % # 𝑧 % #&! 𝑓 #&! … 𝜖 % #&! Figure 2:The overall framework of CHiLD, which incorporates contextual Hierarchical encoder (Enc), step-wise decoder (Dec), and hierarchical prior networks.To capture the hierarchical latent dynamics, we employ the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the posterior distribution of the estimated latent variables and a prior distribution, which coincides with the natural sparsity of hierarchical structure in Theorem 2 and the conditional independence condition in Lemma 1. Moreover, we devise a hierarchical prior network to estimate the prior distribution of latent variables, which is based on the normalizing flow [61,63] and converts the prior distribution into a Gaussian noise like [74,5]. Please refer to Appendix F.3 for implementation details.
Contextual Hierarchical Encoder and Step-wise DecoderGuided by Theorem 1, we use the temporal context observations to identify multi-layer latent variables. Therefore, we devise a contextual hierarchical encoder for the inference process in Equation ( 7):ẑ1 t = ϕ 1 (x t-L:t+L ), • • • , ẑl t = ϕ l (ẑ l-1 t ), • • • , ẑL t = ϕ L (ẑ L-1 t )(7)which ϕ 1 encodes the observations to the first latent layer, and adopts a similar form of 1D convolutional neural networks. Subsequently, each ϕ L encode the preceding latent layer, ẑL-1 t , to extract the deeper or higher-level components, yielding ẑL t . L can be considered as the size of the receptive field. Accordingly, we employ a neural architecture based on temporal convolutional neural networks (TCN) [44,45] as the contextual encoder. Given the estimated latent variables ẑt , we further develop a step-wise decoder that only takes the bottom-layer ẑt as input to generate xt for each time-step within the receptive field, as shown in Equation (8).xt = ψ(ẑt).(8)
Hierarchical Prior NetworksTo make the estimated latent variables capture the hierarchical property and the conditional independent property , one straightforward solution is to minimize the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the posterior distribution and the prior distribution. However, the prior distribution is unknown and if we estimate the prior density directly, arbitrary density functions may be generated, leading to an incorrect posterior distribution. To address this challenge, motivated by [74,5], who use normalizing flow [61] to model the causal procedure of latent variables by restricting the independence of estimated noise, we propose the hierarchical prior networks to estimate the prior distribution of latent variables. Specifically, given time delay τ , we let r l t = {r l t,1 , • • • , r l t,i , • • • , r l t,J κ =    I 0 0 0 I 0 * * diag ∂r l t,i ∂ ẑl t,i   ,where * denotes a matrix. By applying the change of variables formula, we have:p(ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t , ẑl t ) = p(ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t , εl t )|J κ |.(9)By dividing p(ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t ) on both sides, the prior distribution can be derived as follows: where p(ε l t,i ) follow Gaussian distributions. For the reconstruction likelihood L R , we use the meansquared error (MSE) to measure the discrepancy between the generated and original observations. Further Discussion: Please note that although CaRiNG [5] also leverages the contextual observation in a VAE-based framework, the main difference between CaRiNG and CHiLD can be summarized into the following two folds. 1) The model design comes from different theoretical guidance. Motivated by the nonlinear ICA-based theoretical results, CaRiNG leverages the contextual observations to recover the lost latent information and address the challenge of a non-invertible mixing function. In contrast, our method is guided by the uniqueness of spectral decomposition and overcomes the difficulties of hierarchical latent dynamics. 2) The prior distribution estimations of these two methods are also different. CaRiNG assumes single-layer latent variables and uses the time-delayed and current latent variables to estimate noise. Meanwhile, the CHiLD allows hierarchical latent dynamics and hence harnesses the current, time-delayed, as well as hierarchical latent variables for noise estimation.log p(ẑ l t |ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t ) = log p(ε l t |ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t ) + log |J κ | = n i log p(ε l t,i ) + log ∂ε l t,i ∂ ẑl t,i ,(10)
OptimizationFinally, we train the proposed model by optimizing the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) as followsELBO = E q(z 1:T |x 1:T ) ln p(x 1:T | |z 1:T ) -D KL (q(z 1:T |x 1:T )||p(z 1:T )) = E q(z 1:T |x 1:T ) T t=1 log p(x t |z t ) L R + E q(z 1:T |x 1:T ) T t=1 log p(z t |z t-1:t-τ ) -log q(z t |x t-L:t+L ) L KL ,(11)where D KL denotes the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the detailed derivation can be found in Appendix F.2. For the reconstruction loss L R , we use the mean-squared error (MSE) to measure the discrepancy between the generated and original observations. And we leverage the Equation (10) to approximate the KL divergence.
Experiment
Experiments on Synthetic DataData Generation. We generate synthetic time series data based on a fixed latent causal process, as defined in Equations ( 1)-(3). To evaluate the proposed theoretical results, we provide seven different datasets from A to G, with different numbers of latent variables, different complexities of generation processes, and different latent layers. Note that Dataset B consists of single-layer latent variables, while other datasets adhere to the assumptions underlying the proposed theoretical framework. Details of the data generation process and evaluation metrics can be found in Appendix G.1.Baselines. To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, we consider the following baselines. First, we consider the standard β-VAE [20] and FactorVAE [38], which do not use historical information. Then we consider TDRL [74], iVAE [37], TCL [28], PCL [29], and SlowVAE [40], which use temporal information but do not contain instantaneous dependency. We also consider CaRiNG [5] and IDOL [48], which leverage contextual observations and consider instantaneous dependency, respectively. We use mean correlation coefficient (MCC) as the evaluation metric.Results and Discussion. Experiment results are shown in Table 2. According to the experiment results, we can find that: 1) the proposed CHiLD achieves the highest MCC performance in Datasets A, C, D, and E; 2) the CHiLD and the recently proposed methods like IDOL and CaRiNG achieve good performance in Dataset B since it does not contain hierarchical latent dynamics. 3) In the more challenging Dataset F and G (datasets with large dimensions and latent layers), although the   MCC performance of the proposed CHiLD is lower, it can still outperform the existing methods for temporal causal representation learning, like IDOL, which supports our theoretical claims.
Experiments on Real-world Data
Experiment SetupDatasets. We consider the task of unconditional time series generation and use the following datasets: Stock, ETTh1, fMRI, MuJoCo, and two human motion datasets, Human3.6M and HumanEva-I. For Human3.6M [32], we choose 3 motions: Discussion, Purchases, and WalkingDog. For HumanEva-I [65], we choose Box, Gesture, and Throwcatch. We further consider three climate datasets: Weather, WeatherBench, and CESM2. Please refer to Appendix G.2.1 and D for the dataset description and the connection between time series generation and modeling hierarchical temporal latent dynamics. Baselines. First, we consider the VAE-based methods like cwVAE [64], KoVAE [58] and TimeVAE [9]. We also consider other types of generative models like Diffusion-TS [76] and TimeGAN [75]. Moreover, we consider the causal representation-based method like IDOL [48]. We choose Context-Fréchet Inception Distance (Context-FID) and the Correlational Score as evaluation metrics. We repeat each experiment over 3 random seeds and publish the mean and standard deviation. Please refer to Appendix G.2.2 for the introduction to the evaluation metric.
Quantitative ResultsThe experimental results in Table 3 show that the proposed CHiLD method significantly outperforms all baselines across most datasets, such as Box and Discussion, highlighting its potential for time series generation. While TimeVAE and KoVAE also employ VAE-based architectures, they assume independent latent variables. In contrast, CHiLD enforces a hierarchical latent structure, enabling it to model high-level dependence and hence generate more realistic time series data. Other time series generation baselines, such as Diffusion-TS and TimeGAN, fail to deliver optimal performance, particularly on human motion datasets. This can be attributed to the higher dimensionality of human motion data compared to datasets like ETTh1, which implies more complex latent dynamics. Please refer to Appendix G.3.2 and G.3.1 for more experiment results and the ablation studies.
Qualitative ResultsWe also provide the interpolation visualization results. Specifically, after training each model, we change one latent variable gradually and keep the other fixed. Controllable Generation. To evaluate controllable generation, we compare TimeVAE, TimeGAN, and DiffusionTS in the Discussion motion generation dataset. As shown in Figure 3. TimeGAN performs the worst, as the generated motion patterns are difficult to recognize as human shapes. TimeVAE produces more structured movements but lacks coordination. While DiffusionTS generates recognizable human shapes, the variations in motion with respect to the latent variable are limited, indicating weak controllability. In contrast, CHiLD method generates high-quality human motions and enables coordinated changes in limb movements through latent variable control. Please find more interpolation results in the form of GIF visualization from the supplementary material.Hierarchical Generation. We interpolate both high-level and low-level latent variables in CHiLD and generate corresponding motions. As shown in Figure 4, green represents stable joints, while red indicates joints that change with the latent variable. The results show that high-level latent variables influence a broader range of joints compared to low-level ones, demonstrating that our method effectively captures hierarchical abstractions in time-series data.
ConclusionThis paper introduces an identification framework for temporal causal representation learning under hierarchical latent dynamics. The proposed method leverages temporal contextual observations to estimate the joint distributions of multi-layer latent variables and exploits the sparsity of hierarchical structures to achieve precise latent variable identification within each layer. A VAE-based generative model, incorporating a contextual encoder and normalizing flow-based hierarchical priors, enforces independent noise conditions while enhancing the capacity to generate realistic time series data. Empirical evaluations on both synthetic and real-world datasets validate the theoretical guarantees and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Future works will extend this framework to more complex domains, including controllable video generation, as well as applications in neuroscience, finance, and climate modeling. Limitation: However, the component-wise identifiability result of our work also relies on other assumptions like layer-wise conditional independence. How to further relax these assumptions would be an interesting future direction.
NeurIPS Paper ChecklistThe checklist is designed to encourage best practices for responsible machine learning research, addressing issues of reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. Do not remove the checklist: The papers not including the checklist will be desk rejected. The checklist should follow the references and follow the (optional) supplemental material. The checklist does NOT count towards the page limit.Please read the checklist guidelines carefully for information on how to answer these questions. For each question in the checklist:• You should answer [Yes] , [No] , or [NA] .• [NA] means either that the question is Not Applicable for that particular paper or the relevant information is Not Available.• Please provide a short (1-2 sentence) justification right after your answer (even for NA).The checklist answers are an integral part of your paper submission. They are visible to the reviewers, area chairs, senior area chairs, and ethics reviewers. You will be asked to also include it (after eventual revisions) with the final version of your paper, and its final version will be published with the paper.The reviewers of your paper will be asked to use the checklist as one of the factors in their evaluation.While "[Yes] " is generally preferable to "[No] ", it is perfectly acceptable to answer "[No] " provided a proper justification is given (e.g., "error bars are not reported because it would be too computationally expensive" or "we were unable to find the license for the dataset we used"). In general, answering "[No] " or "[NA] " is not grounds for rejection. While the questions are phrased in a binary way, we acknowledge that the true answer is often more nuanced, so please just use your best judgment and write a justification to elaborate. All supporting evidence can appear either in the main paper or the supplemental material, provided in appendix. If you answer [Yes] to a question, in the justification please point to the section(s) where related material for the question can be found.IMPORTANT, please:• Delete this instruction block, but keep the section heading "NeurIPS Paper Checklist",• Keep the checklist subsection headings, questions/answers and guidelines below.• Do not modify the questions and only use the provided macros for your answers.
ClaimsQuestion: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?Answer: [Yes] Justification: Our works address the identification problem of hierarchical temporal causal representation.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 viewers. • 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 as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
LimitationsQuestion: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We have provided the limitation in the conclusion explicitly.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a 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 on a few datasets or with a 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, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to 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 fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a 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 important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
Theory assumptions and proofsQuestion: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We have provided the full set of assumptions and a complete proof.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 crossreferenced. • 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 to 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.
Experimental result reproducibilityQuestion: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental 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)?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We have provided implementation details.
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 a 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 a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is 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 to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed. • While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. , with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset). (d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case 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 to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
Open access to data and codeQuestion: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We have provided the code in the supplementary material.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness 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 a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an 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 a 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 as 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 or 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 to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
SafeguardsQuestion: Does the paper describe 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)? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a 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 a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: 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?Answer: [Yes]Justification:Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a 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 the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.
New assetsQuestion: 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 of the dataset/code/model as part of 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 is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
Crowdsourcing and research with human subjectsQuestion: 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 as 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 in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.  is p(a) = 0. In other words, no matter the range of an operator is on finite or infinite, it is complete if its null space 6 or kernel is a zero set. Completeness is always used to phrase the sufficient and necessary condition for injective linear operator [59,6]. Theorem A1. (Theorem XV 4.5 in [11] Part III) A bounded operator T is a spectral operator if and only if it is the sum T = S + N of a bounded scalar type operator S and a quasi-nilpotent operator N commuting with S. Furthermore, this decomposition is unique and T and S have the same spectrum and the same resolution of the identity. Lemma A1. (Lemma 1 in [24]) Under Assumption 1, if L z|x is injective, then L -1 x|z exists and is densely defined over G(X)(for G = L 1 , L 1 bnd ).Properties of linear operator. We outline useful properties of the linear operator to facilitate understanding of our proof:i. (Inverse) If linear operator:L b|a exists a left-inverse L -1 b|a , such L -1 b|a • L b|a • p a = p a for all a ∈ A. Analogously, if L b|a exists a right-inverse L -1 b|a , such L b|a • L -1 b|a • p a = p a for all a ∈ A.If L b|a is bijective, there exists left-inverse and right-inverse which are the same.ii. (Injective) L b|a is said to be an injective linear operator if its L -1 b|a is defined over the range of the operator L b|a [43]. If so, under assumption 1 (ii ), L -1 a|b exists and is densely defined over F(A). [24]. iii. (Composition) Given two linear operators L c|b : F(B) → F(C) and L c|a : F(A) → F(C), with the function space supports defined uniformly on the range of supports for the domain spaces as characterized by L b|a , it follows that L c|a = L c|b • L b|a . Furthermore, the properties of linearity and associativity are preserved in the operation of linear operators. However, it is crucial to note the non-commutativity of these operators, i.e., L c|b L b|a ̸ = L b|a L c|b , indicating the significance of the order of application. Definition 6 (Markov Network). Markov network is an undirected graph G = (V, E) with a set of random variables x v∈V , where any two non-adjacent variables like x a and x b are conditionally independent given all other variables. That is,x a ⊥ x b |x V \{a,b} , ∀(a, b) / ∈ E. (A3)Markov Networks and Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) are both graphical models employed to represent joint distributions and to illustrate conditional independence properties. Based on the definition of Markov Network, we further define Vector-Node Markov Network as follows: Definition 7 (Vector-Node Markov Network). A Markov network where each node represents a vector, rather than a scalar variable. In this structure, the joint distribution is factorized over a graph G = (V, E), where V is the set of nodes, and each v ∈ V corresponds to a multidimensional vector x v . Given any two non-adjacent vectors x a and x b , any x a,i ∈ x a and x b,j ∈ x b are conditionally independent given all other variables. That is,x a,i ⊥ x b,j |x V \{a,b} , ∀(a, b) / ∈ E.(A4)Since K ẑt,zt , L -1 x>t|ẑt , and L zt|x>t are continuous, is continuous and differentiable. Moreover, by leveraging Assumption (iii), different values of z, i.e., zt , z(2 t imply p(x t |z (1) t ) ̸ = p(x t |z (2)t ). So we can construct a function F : Z → p(x t |z t ), and we have:z (1) t ̸ = z (2) t -→ F (z (1) t ) ̸ = F (z (2) t ),(A23)implying that F is injective. Moreover, by using Equation (A22), we have F (z t ) = F (h(ẑ t )), which implies z t = h(ẑ t ).The aforementioned result leverage x <t , x t , and x >t as three different measurement of z t , where|x <t | ≫ |z t |, |x >t | ≫ |z t | and |x t | < |z t |.It may imply that when the x t cannot provide enough information to recover z t , we can seek more information from x <t and x >t .Sequentially, we further prove that when the observed and L-layer latent variables follow the data generation process in Equation ( 1) and ( 2), we require at least 2L + 1 adjacent observed variables, i.e., {x t-L , • • • , x t , • • • , x t+L } to make z t block-wise identifiable. We prove it by contradiction as follows.Suppose we have 2L adjacent observations, which can be divided into two cases: 1){x t-L+1 , • • • , x t , • • • , x t+L } and {x t-L , • • • , x t , • • • , x t+L-1 }.In the first case, suppose the dimension of x t and that of any layer of latent variables z l t are n, the dimension ofx t-L+1 , • • • , x t-1 is (L -1) × n and the dimension of z t is L × n, conflicting with the assumption that L xt+1,••• ,x t+L ′ |zt is injective. In the second case, the dimensions of x t-L , • • • , x t-1 and x t+1 , • • • , x t+L-1 are L × n and (L -1) × n, respectively, conflicting with the assumption that L x t-L ′ ,••• ,xt-1|xt+1,••• ,x t+L is in- jective.As a result, we require at least 2L + 1 adjacent observations, i.e., {x t-L , • • • , x t , • • • , x t+L } to make z t block-wise identifiable.
B.3 Examples of injective linear operatorsThe assumption of the injectivity of a linear operator is commonly employed in the nonparametric identification [24,3,26]. Intuitively, it means that different input distributions of a linear operator correspond to different output distributions of that operator. For a better understanding of this assumption, we provide several examples that describe the mapping from p a → p b , where a and b are random variables. Example 1 (Inverse Transformation). b = g(a), where g is an invertible function.Example 2 (Additive Transformation). b = a + ϵ, where p(ϵ) must not vanish everywhere after the Fourier transform (Theorem 2.1 in [55]). 
B.4 Monotonicity and Normalization AssumptionAssumption 1 (Monotonicity and Normalization Assumption [26]). For any x t ∈ X t , there exists a known functionalG such that G p xt+1|xt,zt (•|x t , z t ) is monotonic in z t . We normalize z t = G p xt+1|xt,zt (•|x t , z t ) .B.5 Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t in any l-th Layer Theorem A3. (Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t in any l-th Layer.) For a series of observed variables x t ∈ R n and estimated latent variables ẑt ∈ R n with the corresponding process fi , P (ε), P (η), ĝ, suppose that the process subject to observational equivalence x t = ĝ(ẑ t , ηt ). We let c t ≜ {z t-1 , z t ∈ R 2×L×n and that M ct be the variable set of two consecutive timestamps and the corresponding node-vector Markov network respectively, and further employ following assumptions:• (i) (Smooth and Positive Density): The conditional probability function of the latent variables c t is smooth and positive, i.e., p(c t |z t-2 ) is third-order differentiable and p(c t |z t-2 ) > 0 over R 2×L×n .• (ii) (Sufficient Variability): Denote |M ct | as the number of edges in Markov network M ct . Letw(m) = ∂ 3 log p(ct|zt-2) ∂c 2 t,1 ∂zt-2,m , • • • , ∂ 3 log p(ct|zt-2) ∂c 2 t,2n ∂zt-2,m ⊕ ∂ 2 log p(ct|zt-2) ∂ct,1∂zt-2,m , • • • , ∂ 2 log p(ct|zt-2) ∂ct,2n∂zt-2,m ⊕ ∂ 3 log p(ct|zt-2) ∂ct,i∂ct,j∂zt-2,m (i,j)∈E(Mc t ) ,(A24)where ⊕ denotes concatenation operation and (i, j) ∈ E(M ct ) denotes all pairwise indice such that c t,i , c t,j are adjacent inM ct . For m ∈ [1, • • • , n], there exist 4n+|M ct | different values of z t-2,m, such that the 4n + |M ct | values of vector functions w(m) are linearly independent.Then for latent variables z l t at the l-th layer, z l t is block-wise identifiable, i.e., there exists ẑl t and an invertible function h l t : R n → R n , such that z l t = h l t (ẑ l t ).Proof. By reusing Theorem A2 with more observed variables, {z t-2 , z t-1 , z t } and {z t-1 , z t } are also block-wise identifiable, implying that there exists invertible functions h 3 and h 2 , such that ẑt-2 , ẑt-1 , ẑt = h 3 (z t-2 , z t-1 , z t ) and ẑt-1 , ẑt = h 2 (z t-1 , z t ). So we have:P (ẑ t-2 , ẑt-1 , ẑt ) = P (ẑ t-2 , z t-1 , z t )|J h2 | ⇐⇒ P (ẑ t-1 , ẑt |ẑ t-2 ) = P (z t-1 , z t |ẑ t-2 )|J h2 | ⇐⇒ P (ĉ t |ẑ t-2 ) = P (c t |ẑ t-2 )|J h2 | ⇐⇒ ln P (ĉ t |ẑ t-2 ) = ln P (c t |ẑ t-2 ) + ln |J h2 |,(A25)And then we partition the latent variables z t into two parts z t
Let ẑl1t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o be two variables that denote the k-th variable of z l1 t-1 and o-th variable of z l2 t , respectively, where l 1 > l 2 . According to the data generation process, it is not hard to find that ẑl1 t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o are not adjacent in the estimated Markov network M ĉt over ĉt = {ẑ t-1 , ẑt }. We conduct the first-order derivative w.r.t. ẑl1 t-1,k and have∂ log p(ĉ t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k = 2L l=1 n i=1 ∂ log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k + ∂ log |J h2 | ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k .(A26)We further conduct the second-order derivative w.r.t. ẑl1 t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o , then we have:∂ 2 log p(ĉ t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o = 2L l=1 n i=1 2L s=1 n j=1 ∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l2 t,o + 2L l=1 n i=1 ∂ log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i • ∂ 2 c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o + ∂ 2 log |J h2 | ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o .(A27)Since ẑl1 t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o are not adjacent in M ĉt , ẑl1 t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o are conditionally independent given ĉt \{ĉ t,k , ĉt,l }. Utilizing the fact that conditional independence can lead to zero cross derivative [53], for each value of ẑt-2 , we have:∂ 2 log p(ĉ t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o = ∂ 2 log p(ĉ t,k |ĉ t \{ẑ l1 t-1,k , ẑl2 t,o }, ẑt-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o + ∂ 2 log p(ĉ t,l |c t \{ẑ l1 t-1,k , ẑl2 t,o }, ẑt-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o + ∂ 2 log p(ĉ t \{ẑ l1 t-1,k , ẑl2 t,o }|ẑ t-2 ) ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o = 0. (A28)Bring in Equation (A28), Equation (A27) can be further derived as: = 2L l=1 n i=1 ∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂(c l t,i ) 2 • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l2 t,o (i) i=j + 2L l=1 n i=1 s:(s,l)∈E(Mc t ) n j=1 ∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l2 t,o(ii)where (j, i) ∈ E(M ct ) denotes that c t,i and c t,j are adjacent in M ct . Similar to Equation (A28), we have ∂ 2 p(ct|zt-2) ∂ct,i∂ct,j = 0 when c t,i , c t,j are not adjacent in M ct . Thus, Equation (A29) can be rewritten as:0 = 2L l=1 n i=1 ∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂(c l t,i ) 2 • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l2 t,o + 2L l=1 n i=1 s:(s,l)∈E(Mc t ) n j=1 ∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l2 t,o + 2L l=1 n i=1 ∂ log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i • ∂ 2 c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o + ∂ log |J hc,t | ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o ,(A30)Then for each m = 1, 2 respectively.According to the data generation process, we can restrict the independent noises among blocks, and hence the estimated node-vector Markov network is isomorphic to the ground-truth node-vector Markov network.Sequentially, we further give the proof that under the same permutation z π t , block z i t is only a function of z π(i) t. Since the permutation happens on each timestamp respectively, the cross-timestamp block-wise identifiability is presented clearly.Suppose there exists a pair of indices l, s ∈ {1, • • • , L}. Since h 2 is invertible, there exists a permuted version of the estimated blocks, denoted as c π t , such that: ∂z l t,i ∂ẑ π(l) t,j ̸ = 0, l = 1, • • • , L, and i, j = 1, • • • , n,(0 = n i=1 ∂ 2 ln P (z l t,i |û m ) (∂z l t,i ) 2 - ∂ 2 ln P (z l t,i |û 0 ) (∂z l t,i ) 2 • ∂z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,j • ∂z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,k + ∂ ln P (z l t,i |û m ) ∂z l t,i - ∂ ln P (z l t,i |û 0 ) ∂z l t,i • ∂ 2 z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,j ∂ẑ l t,k ,(A47)where m = 1, • • • , 2n. As a result, under the sufficient variability assumption, the linear system is a 2n×2n full-rank system, and the only solution is ̸ = 0 for at most one element j ∈ {1, • • • , n}. Therefore, there is only at most one non-zero entry in each row indexed by i in the Jacobian J h l t . Moreover, the invertibility of h l t necessitates J h l t to be full-rank which implies that there is exactly one non-zero component in each row of J h l t , implying that the z l t,i is component-wise identifiable.
C Real-world Implications of Modeling Time Series Data in a Hierarchical MannerReal-world scenarios are usually governed by hierarchical layers of temporal latent dynamics instead of a single one. Capturing the hierarchical temporal latent dynamics plays a critical role in modeling time series data. Here is two real-world scenarios.Human Motion Modeling. Human locomotion unfolds over multiple temporal layers [16,60,2]:• Higher-level latent variables: Capture coarse movement categories-e.g., walking versus running or resting-capturing the switch-like changes in overall gait dynamics.• Lower-level latent variables: Resolve fine-grained kinematics such as joint angles, stride frequency, and instantaneous speed.This decomposition isolates semantically meaningful factors: the high-level code tells what activity is occurring, while the low-level code details how it is executed. Such a structure supports downstream tasks, including activity recognition, early anomaly detection (e.g., pathological gaits), and personalized coaching systems that adapt exercises to an individual's movement profile.Climate Modeling. Atmospheric processes also exhibit a natural hierarchy [34,71], which is shown as follows:• Top-level latent variables capture large-scale regimes like monsoon cycles or transitions between seasons, governing the dominant energy balance of a region. • Middle-level latent variables reflect regional or intra-seasonal patterns-e.g., the twelve traditional solar terms in East Asia or monthly precipitation phases that modulate local ecosystems. • Bottom-level latent variables track short-term fluctuations in temperature, humidity, and wind that drive daily weather variability.Modeling these tiers jointly enables scientists to disentangle long-term trends from transient disturbances, improving extended-range forecasts, pinpointing abnormal events (heat-wave onsets, unseasonal cold snaps), and facilitating attribution studies of climate change.
D Relationship between Time Series Generation and Hierarchical DynamicsThe goal of time series generation is to identify the joint distribution of observed variables of different time steps, i.e., p(x  
E Related WorksTime Series Generation Generating realistic time series data [66,33,1,13,80] is important in numerous fields, including finance, healthcare, and engineering, where access to sufficient data can be challenging. Traditional generative methods, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [17,56,12,62,35] and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) [39,46,7], have been widely explored for time series generation. TimeGAN [75], a GAN-based framework, integrates adversarial and supervised losses to effectively capture temporal dynamics, demonstrating superior performance over previous methods in terms of similarity and predictive performance. However, such GAN-based models often face challenges such as training instability and mode collapse. To overcome these limitations, VAEs have been explored as a more robust alternative. TimeVAE [10] incorporates domain knowledge to model temporal patterns like trends and seasonalities, improving both interpretability and training efficiency. Recent advances have also introduced diffusion-based models [41,15,21], such as Diffusion-TS [76], which leverage disentangled temporal representations and Fourier-based training objectives to generate high-quality and interpretable time series while mitigating common limitations of autoregressive approaches. Furthermore, Koopman VAEs (KoVAE) [58] leverage linear latent dynamics inspired by Koopman theory, enabling the integration of domain knowledge and stability analysis. These methods collectively illustrate the evolving landscape of time series generation, with a focus on balancing realism, interpretability, and computational efficiency. Other relevant works include [36], which synthesize time series by manipulating existing time series.Identifiability of Causal Representation Learning Independent Component Analysis (ICA) has been widely used to identify latent variables with identifiability guarantees, traditionally assuming a linear mixing process [8,30,27]. However, this linearity constraint restricts its applicability in more complex scenarios. To handle nonlinear scenarios, researchers have proposed nonlinear ICA by introducing additional assumptions, such as auxiliary variables [37,72,47] or structural sparsity [79,78,49]. Specifically, methods based on auxiliary variables [28,29,50] typically assume that latent sources are conditionally independent given auxiliary information, such as domain indices or temporal segments, thereby enabling identifiability. For unsupervised approaches, structural sparsity in the generative process has been exploited to recover causal latent factors without relying on auxiliary variables [79,78,67]. This approach ensures identifiability by enforcing sparsity constraints on the Jacobian of the mixing function, allowing for the identification up to componentwise transformations and permutations.Temporal observations introduce unique challenges to identifiability, especially in the presence of instantaneous dependencies and dynamic latent structures. [28] achieves identifiability for stationary data using permutation-based contrastive learning, while [29] extends this approach to nonstationary time series by leveraging variability in data segments. Recent methodss [73,74] assume conditional independence of latent variables given their time-delayed parent to identify latent causal relations. However, these assumptions often fail in real-world scenarios where instantaneous dependencies are prevalent, such as in human motion data, making them of limited applicability in such contexts.Recently, [48] proposed an identification framework for instantaneous latent dynamics, introducing a sparse influence constraint to enforce sparsity in both time-delayed and instantaneous causal relationships among latent processes. While these advances enhance identifiability, addressing hierarchical latent dependencies remains a key challenge for further improving the identifiability of causal structures in temporal data.
F Implementation Details F.1 Prior Likelihood DerivationWe first consider the prior of ln p(z 1:t ). We start with an illustrative example of stationary latent causal processes with two time-delay latent variables, i.e. z t = [z t,1 , z t,2 ] with maximum time lag L = 1, i.e., z t,i = f i (z t-1 , ϵ t,i ) with mutually independent noises. Then we write this latent process as a transformation map f (note that we overload the notation f for transition functions and for the transformation map):   z t-1,1 z t-1,2 z t,1 z t,2    = f       z t-1,1 z t-1,2 ϵ t,1 ϵ t,2       .By applying the change of variables formula to the map f , we can evaluate the joint distribution of the latent variables p(z t-1,1 , z t-1,2 , z t,1 , z t,2 ) asp(zt-1,1, zt-1,2, zt,1, zt,2) = p(zt-1,1, zt-1,2, ϵt,1, ϵt,2) |det J f | ,(A48)where J f is the Jacobian matrix of the map f , where the instantaneous dependencies are assumed to be a low-triangular matrix:J f =      1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ∂z t,1 ∂z t-1,1 ∂z t,1 ∂z t-1,2 ∂z t,1 ∂ϵ t,1 0 ∂z t,2 ∂z t-1,1 ∂z t,2 ∂z t-1,2 ∂z t,2 ∂ϵ t,1 ∂z t,2 ∂ϵ t,2      .Given that this Jacobian is triangular, we can efficiently compute its determinant as i ∂zt,i ϵt,i . Furthermore, because the noise terms are mutually independent, and hence ϵ t,i ⊥ ϵ t,j for j ̸ = i and ϵ t ⊥ z t-1 , so we can with the RHS of Equation (A48) as followsp(zt-1,1, zt-1,2, zt,1, zt,2) = p(zt-1,1, zt-1,2) × p(ϵt,1, ϵt,2) |J f | = p(zt-1,1, zt-1,2) × i p(ϵt,i) |J f | . (A49)Finally, we generalize this example and derive the prior likelihood below. Let {r i } i=1,2,3,••• be a set of learned inverse transition functions that take the estimated latent causal variables, and output the noise terms, i.e., εt,i = r i (ẑ t,i , {ẑ t-τ }). Then we design a transformation A → B with low-triangular Jacobian as follows: 
G.1.3 More Simulation Experiments of Different Length of ObservationsTo evaluate our theoretical results that L-layer latent variables require 2L+1 consecutive observations, we designed an experiment on a synthetic two-layer model with 8 latent variables in each layer. In our experimental setting, we vary the number of consecutive observations, i.e., 1,3,5, denoted by settings J1, J3, and J5, respectively. The results are shown in Table A7: Table A7: MCC performance under different numbers of consecutive observations.Setting MCC (mean ± std) 1 J1 0.6859 ± 0.024 3 J3 0.7001 ± 0.008 5 J5 0.7622 ± 0.004According to the experiment results, we can find that we observe that as the length of the consecutive observation window increases, the recovery performance of the latent variables improves. In particular, when the length is 2L + 1, i.e., 5, the identifiability result is optimal.G.2 Real-world Experiment
G.2.1 Dataset DescriptionThe detailed descriptions of the datasets are shown as follows:• Stock is the Google stock price data from 2004 to 2019. Each observation represents one day and has 6 features.• ETTh1 dataset contains the data collected from electricity transformers, including load and oil temperature that is recorded every 15 minutes between July 2016 and July 2018.• fMRI is a benchmark for causal discovery, which consists of realistic simulations of bloodoxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) time series.• MuJoCo (multi-joint dynamics with contact) is a time series dataset generated by the physics engine.• Huaman 3.6 is collected over 3.6 million different human poses, viewed from 4 different angles, using an accurate human motion capture system. The motions were executed by 11 professional actors, and covered a diverse set of everyday scenarios including conversations, eating, greeting, talking on the phone, posing, sitting, smoking, taking photos, waiting, and walking in various non-typical scenarios. We randomly use four motions, i.e., Gestures (Ge), Jog (J), CatchThrow (CT), and Walking (W).• HuamnEVA-I comprises 3 subjects, each performing several action categories. Each pose has 15 joints with three axis. We choose 6 motions, i.e., Discussion (D), Greeting (Gr), Purchases (P), SittingDown (SD), Walking (W), and WalkTogether (WT) for the task of human motion forecasting. Specifically, the ground truth motion of the body was captured using a commercial motion capture (MoCap) system from ViconPeak 5 The system uses reflective markers and six 1M-pixel cameras to recover the 3D position of the markers and thereby estimate the 3D articulated pose of the body. We consider the joints as latent variables and the signals recorded from the system as observations.• Weather7 dataset offers 10-minute summaries from an automated rooftop station at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany.• WeatherBench8 is a benchmark dataset for data-driven medium-range weather forecasting. It repackages forty years (1979-2018) of ERA5 global reanalysis into machine-learning-ready NetCDF tensors sampled every six hours. Fourteen core surface and pressure-level variables-geopotential height, temperature, humidity, wind components, vorticity, potential vorticity, cloud cover, precipitation, solar radiation, and more-are provided on latitude-longitude grids of 0.25°, 1.406°, 2.812°, and 5.625°. Static fields such as land-sea mask, soil type, orography, and grid coordinates are included.• CESM29 delivers 100 fully coupled Earth system simulations at 1°resolution spanning 1850-2100 under CMIP6 historical and SSP3-7.0 forcing. Ensemble spread arises from distinct ocean-atmosphere initial states: ten members seeded from evenly spaced low-drift periods; eighty members created by tiny 10-14 K atmospheric perturbations applied to four AMOC-phased control years; and ten MOAR members useful for regional downscaling.
G.2.2 Evaluation Metric• Context-Frechet Inception Distance (Context-FID) score [35] quantifies the quality of the synthetic time series samples by computing the difference between representations of time series that fit into the local context.• Correlational score [51] uses the absolute error between cross-correlation matrices by real data and synthetic data to assess the temporal dependency.
G.3 More Experiment Results
G.3.1 Experiment results on other datasetsWe would like to clarify that while some absolute improvements may seem small, e.g., 0.079 (ours) vs. 0.098 (IDOL) in the fmri dataset, it represents a 19% relative improvement. Focusing on percentage improvements, we observe significant gains of 34.07% and 23.91% of two metrics, showing the effectiveness of CHiLD. 
G.3.2 Ablation StudyTo evaluate the effectiveness of each module, we further devise two variants of the proposed CHiLD as follows. 1) CHiLD-KL: we remove the KL divergence restriction of prior estimation. 2) CHiLD-C: we do not use the context information for the proposed CHiLD. Experiment results are shown in Table A9, we can find that incorporating the contextual observation and KL divergence has a positive impact on the overall performance of the model. 
H Broader ImpactsThe proposed CHiLD method offers a significant advancement in identifying hierarchical latent dynamics, which is crucial for generating realistic and interpretable time series data across a wide range of domains such as healthcare, finance, climate science, and autonomous systems. By enabling the generation of time series that are both data-driven and causally grounded, our method not only enhances the credibility of the generated sequences but also improves the performance of downstream tasks like forecasting, anomaly detection, and decision-making. These improvements foster increased trust and adoption of machine learning models in applications, particularly where reliable data-driven insights are of paramount importance.Furthermore, our work contributes to the broader field of generative modeling by providing a principled framework for hierarchical latent dynamics. This framework mitigates issues like mode collapse, a common problem in generative models, and enhances the model's generalizability across various datasets. As a result, CHiLD stands as a powerful tool for both researchers and practitioners looking to explore complex time series data and apply generative modeling techniques in realworld scenarios. This method paves the way for future research in more complex domains, such as controllable video generation, neuroscience, and predictive analytics in environmental systems, thereby further extending its applicability.Figure 3 :3Figure 3: Interpolation visualization of different models. For each method, after training the model, only one latent variable is gradually changed while keeping the other variables fixed. The images of each method from left to right represent the gradual increase of the latent variable.
Figure 4 :4Figure 4: Interpolation visualization of high-level and low-level latent variables of the proposed CHiLD method. Interpolating high-level latent variables leads to more significant changes in observed data compared to interpolating low-level latent variables.
For example (a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm. (b) If the contribution is primarily a 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 be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (e.g.
Definition 4 .4(Diagonal Operator) Consider two random variable a and b, density functions p a and p b are defined on some support A and B, respectively. The diagonal operator D b|a maps the density function p a to another density function D b|a • p a defined by the pointwise multiplication of the function p b|a at a fixed point b: p b|a (b | •)p a = D b|a • p a , where D b|a = p b|a (b | •). (A1) Definition 5. (Completeness) A family of distribution p(a|b) is complete if the only solution p(a) to A p(a)p a|b (a|b) da = 0 for all b ∈ B, (A2)
Example 3. b = g(a) + ϵ, where the same conditions from Examples 1 and 2 are required. Example 4 (Post-linear Transformation). b = g 1 (g 2 (a)+ϵ), a post-nonlinear model with invertible nonlinear functions g 1 , g 2 , combining the assumptions in Examples 1-3. Example 5 (Nonlinear Transformation with Exponential Family). b = g(a, ϵ), where the joint distribution p(a, b) follows an exponential family. Example 6 (General Nonlinear Transformation). b = g(a, ϵ), a general nonlinear formulation. Certain deviations from the nonlinear additive model (Example 3), e.g., polynomial perturbations, can still be tractable.
[ẑt-L, • • • , ẑt-1, ẑt] ⊤ A mapped to [ẑt-L, • • • , ẑt-1, εt,i] ⊤ B , with J A→B = In s ×L 0 * diag ∂r i,j ∂ ẑt,j.(A50)
Table 1 :1Attributes of causal representation learning theories. A check denotes that a method has an attribute or can be applied to a setting, whereas a cross denotes the opposite. such that these 2n vectors v l,m -v l,0 are linearly independent, where v l,m is defined as:MethodHierarchical Structure Noisy Mixing Procedure Instantaneous Dependency Time Series Data StationarityPCL [29]TDRL [74]CaRiNG [5]General [77]IDOL [48]CHiLDLemma 1. (Component-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t,i in any l-th Layer [74, 42])For a series of observed variables x t ∈ R n and estimated latent variables ẑt ∈ R n×L with thecorresponding process fi , P (ε), ĝ, suppose that the process subject to observational equivalencex t = ĝ(ẑ t , ε0 t ). Besides the conditional independence assumption, i.e., log p(z l t |z l t-1 , z l+1 t ) = n i=1 log p(z l t,i |z l t-1 , z l+1 t ), we further assume the sufficient variability for each latent component.For any z l t ∈ Z l t ⊆ R n and û = {ẑ l t-1 , ẑl+1 t } there exist 2n + 1 different values of û, m = 0, • • • , 2n,
n } be a set of learned inverse transition functions that take ẑlt,i , ẑl t-τ , and ẑl+1 t as input and generates the noise term, i.e., εl t,i = r l t,i (ẑ l t,i , ẑl t-τ , ẑl+1 t ). And r l t is implemented by MLPs. Sequentially, we can devise a transformation κ : {ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t , ẑl t } → {ẑ l t-τ , ẑl+1 t , εl t } with its corresponding Jacobian
Table 2 :2Experimental results of MCC on simulation dataDatasetCHiLDIDOLCaRiNGTDRLBeta-VAESlowVAEiVAEFactorVAEPCLTCLA0.901(0.043) 0.842(0.033) 0.836(0.045) 0.823(0.025) 0.750(0.005) 0.774(0.022) 0.604(0.023) 0.509(0.031) 0.513(0.027) 0.405(0.021)B0.941(0.037) 0.938(0.004) 0.941(0.001) 0.942(0.076) 0.753(0.045) 0.858(0.065) 0.524(0.054) 0.417(0.055) 0.384(0.011) 0.404(0.008)C0.835(0.012) 0.801(0.031) 0.802(0.029) 0.797(0.018) 0.748(0.017) 0.742(0.087) 0.615(0.023) 0.322(0.098) 0.329(0.034) 0.356(0.012)D0.841(0.016) 0.765(0.055) 0.788(0.082) 0.771(0.003) 0.708(0.015) 0.738(0.057) 0.710(0.090) 0.679(0.048) 0.452(0.004) 0.462(0.010)E0.862(0.026) 0.722(0.057) 0.728(0.023) 0.702(0.032) 0.716(0.024) 0.515(0.077) 0.723(0.040) 0.741(0.043) 0.621(0.027) 0.069(0.058)F0.808(0.002) 0.687(0.029) 0.723(0.024) 0.678(0.078) 0.667(0.034) 0.685(0.066) 0.691(0.035) 0.630(0.009) 0.384(0.150) 0.319(0.024)G0.774(0.007) 0.609(0.075) 0.572(0.044) 0.505(0.096) 0.523(0.017) 0.429(0.009) 0.611(0.005) 0.499(0.003) 0.442(0.021) 0.345(0.039)
Table 3 :3Experiment results of real-world datasets for the time series generation.Context-FIDWeatherWeatherBenchCESM2BoxGesturesThrowcatchDiscussionPurchasesWalkDogCHiLD0.507(0.042)0.078(0.017)004)0.025(0.002)0.082(0.033)0.029(0.014)0.051(0.022)cwVAE5.061(1.359)0.409(0.056)0.238(0.044) 0.215(0.026) 0.329(0.051)0.284(0.025)0.919(0.132)1.147(0.146)0.565(0.126)TimeVAE3.910(0.858)0.221(0.029)0.108(0.029) 0.203(0.032) 0.438(0.163)0.414(0.134)0.067(0.020)0.074(0.008)0.082(0.012)Correlational ScoreWeatherWeatherBenchCESM2BoxGesturesThrowcatchDiscussionPurchasesWalkDogCHiLD0.165(0.004)5.190(0.016)008)0.559(0.007)1.295(0.010)1.148(0.008)2.067(0.016)cwVAE0.584(0.013) 34.690(0.131)6.469(0.022) 0.812(0.026) 0.926(0.064)0.755(0.025)8.624(0.032)7.741(0.055)6.367(0.079)TimeVAE0.707(0.005) 24.873(0.091)6.363(0.022) 0.891(0.018) 1.046(0.047)1.063(0.046)0.810(0.002)0.568(0.002)0.664(0.003)0.018(0.003) 0.092(0.011) 0.032(0.004) 0.022(0.003) 0.029(0.005) 0.021(0.009) 0.016(0.005) KoVAE 2.131(0.637) 0.171(0.032) 0.198(0.030) 0.056(0.009) 0.079(0.023) 0.183(0.068) 0.235(0.036) 0.143(0.052) 0.137(0.034) Diffusion-TS 3.826(0.915) 1.712(0.163) 0.407(0.037) 0.258(0.017) 0.088(0.006) 0.151(0.011) 0.487(0.116) 0.300(0.048) 0.334(0.037) TimeGAN 6.434(1.398) 1.564(0.269) 3.255(0.232) 0.959(0.087) 0.830(0.081) 3.810(0.345) 3.761(0.393) 1.829(0.225) 3.838(0.440) IDOL 1.694(0.485) 0.239(0.030) 0.142(0.017) 0.125(0.026) 0.018(0.1.250(0.009) 1.599(0.021) 0.089(0.003) 0.065(0.001) 0.014(0.000) 0.100(0.003) 0.126(0.001) KoVAE 1.620(0.012) 20.384(0.082) 10.087(0.017) 1.758(0.038) 1.015(0.030) 1.268(0.051) 4.060(0.023) 2.689(0.054) 3.015(0.021) Diffusion-TS 1.932(0.021) 63.291(0.630) 16.659(0.231) 3.407(0.125) 1.724(0.220) 2.101(0.243) 5.851(0.109) 3.513(0.157) 3.701(0.037) TimeGAN 3.438(0.020) 57.475(1.213) 20.641(0.082) 7.373(0.937) 10.917(1.620) 16.419(1.334) 27.876(0.485) 25.362(1.868) 21.848(0.230) IDOL 1.195(0.014) 34.773(0.059) 9.125(0.016) 1.849(0.035) 0.634(0.
• Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.cc/ public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy) for more details. • While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not 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 a 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: //nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy) for more details. • The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc. • The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only a subset of experiments are reproducible, they 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) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.6. Experimental setting/detailsQuestion: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as 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 it into the paper).results? 9. Code of ethicsQuestion: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the Answer: [Yes] NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Justification: Answer: [Yes] Guidelines: Justification: • 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 Guidelines:that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental • If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require amaterial. deviation from the Code of Ethics.• The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consid-7. Experiment statistical significance eration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? 10. Broader impactsQuestion: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative Answer: [Yes] societal impacts of the work performed? Justification: We repeat all the experiments over three random seeds and report the mean and standard deviation. Answer: [Yes]Guidelines:• The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (forexample, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overallrun with given experimental conditions).• The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula,call to 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 errorof the mean.• It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors shouldpreferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesisof Normality of errors is not verified.• For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables orfigures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negativeerror rates).• If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text howthey were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.8. Experiments compute resourcesQuestion: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com-puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproducethe experiments?Answer: [Yes]• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments. • The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. Justification: We have provided in the implementation details. 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.• Justification: We have provided it in the appendix.
• According to 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 Depending on 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. 16. Declaration of LLM usage Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, declaration is not required. The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components. • Please refer to our LLM policy (https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/LLM) for what should or should not be described. Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 B.2 Proof of Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z t in Hierarchical Latent Process 25 B.3 Examples of injective linear operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B.4 Monotonicity and Normalization Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B.5 Block-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t in any l-th Layer . . . . . . . . . . 28 B.6 Extension to Multiple Lags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B.7 Component-wise Identifiability of Latent Variables z l t,i in any l-th Layer . . . . . . 32 Evaluation Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 G.1.3 More Simulation Experiments of Different Length of Observations . . . . 38 G.2 Real-world Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 G.2.1 Dataset Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 G.2.2 Evaluation Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G.3 More Experiment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G.3.1 Experiment results on other datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G.3.2 Ablation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Question: 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 an equivalent approval/review based on 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. • Answer: [NA] Justification: The core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components. Guidelines: Causal Representation Learning " A Useful Definitions and Lemmas 24 B Proof of Theoretical Results 25 B.1 C Real-world Implications of Modeling Time Series Data in a Hierarchical Manner 33 D Relationship between Time Series Generation and Hierarchical Dynamics 34 E Related Works 34 F Implementation Details 35 • Supplement to " Towards Identifiability of Hierarchical Temporal A Useful Definitions and LemmasH Broader Impacts40F.1 Prior Likelihood Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 F.2 Evident Lower Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F.3 Model Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F.3.1 Reproducibility of Simulation Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F.3.2 Reproducibility of Real-world Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 G Experiment Details 36 G.1 Simulation Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 G.1.1 Data Generation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 G.1.2
ct,i and ct,j are adjacent in Mc t+2L l=1n i=1 s:(s,l) / ∈E(Mc t )n j=1∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l2 t,o(iii)ct,i and ct,j are not adjacent in Mc t+2L l=1n i=1∂ log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i•∂ 2 c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o+∂ log |J hc,t | ∂ẑ l1 t,o t-1,k ∂ẑ l2,
|M c | × n 2 different equations with different values of ẑt-2,m , and the coefficients of the equation system they form are linearly independent. To ensure that the right-hand side of the equations is always 0, the only solution is and o-th variable of z l2 t , respectively, where l 1 > l 2 , we draw the following conclusions. (i) Equation (A33) implies that, each ground-truth latent variable c l t,i in l-th block is a function of at most one of ĉl1 t,k and ĉl2 t,l , which are in l 1 -th and l 2 -th layer, respectively (ii) Equation (A36) implies that, for each pair of ground-truth latent variables c l t,i and c s t,j in l-th and l-th blocks, respectively, that are adjacent in M ct over c t , they can not be a function of ĉl1 t,k and ĉl2∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c s ∂ẑ l2 t,o+∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k∂c l t,i t,o ∂ẑ l2=0,(A34)∂(c l t,i ) 2 ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o=0.(A35)Bringing Eq A33 into Eq A34, at least one product must be zero, and the other must be zero as well.That is,∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c s t,j t,o ∂ẑ l2=0.(A36)According to the aforementioned results, ẑl1 t-1,k and ẑl2 t,o be two variables that denote the k-th variableof z l1 t-1 t,l, • • • , nL and each value of ẑt-2,m , we conduct partial derivative on bothsides of Equation (A30) and have:0 =2L l=1n i=1∂ 3 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂(c l t,i ) 2 ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c l t,i t,o ∂ẑ l2+2L l=1n i=1 s:(s,l)∈E(Mc)n j=1∂ 3 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c s t,j t,o ẑl2(A31)+2L l=1n i=1∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂ 2 c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o,Finally, we have0 =2L l=1n i=1∂ 3 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂(c l t,i ) 2 ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l2 t,o+2L l=1n i=1∂ 2 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂ 2 c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k ∂ẑ l2 t,o+l,s:(l,s)∈E(Mc)n i=1n j=1∂ 3 log p(c t |ẑ t-2 ) ∂c l t,i ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ t-2,m•∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l2 t,o+∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k•∂c l t,i t,o ∂ẑ l2.(A32)According to Assumption A2, we can construct 4nL + ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l1 t-1,k • ∂c l t,i t,o ∂ẑ l2=0,(A33)
Sequentially, we further leverage Lemma A2 to show that there is exist an invertible function h l , such that ẑl t = h l (z l t ). Lemma A2. (Hierarchical Structure Resolves Layer-Wise Permutation Indeterminacy) If the estimated latent causal graph represents a hierarchical structure, the layer-wise components z 1 t , z 2 t , • • • , z L t are block-wise identifiable without permutation.Then for i-th latent variable z l t,i at the l-th layer, z l t,i is component-wise identifiability, i.e., there exists ẑl t,j and an invertible function h l t : R → R, such that ẑl t,j = h l t (z l t,i ).Therefore, for u = u 0 , • • • , u 2n , we have 2n + 1 such equations. Subtracting each equation corresponding to u 1 , • • • , u 2n with the equation corresponding to u 0 results in 2n equations:Proof. According to Theorem A3, we have achieved the block-identifiability of z l t , by letting z l t-1and z l-1 tbe the temporal and hierarchical parents, we further have :P (ẑ l t , ẑl t-1 , ẑl-1 t ) = P (h l t (z l t ), ẑl t-1 , ẑl-1 t ) ⇐⇒ P (ẑ t |ẑ l t-1 , ẑl-1 t ) = P (h l t (z l t )|ẑ l t-1 , ẑl-1 t )nn⇐⇒ ln P (ẑ l t |û) = ln P (z l t |û) + ln |J h l t | ⇐⇒ln P (ẑ l t,i |û) =ln P (z l t,i |û) + ln |J h l t |,i=1i=1(A45)where J h l t is the Jacobian matrix of the transformation associated with h l t . Sequentially, we dif-ferentiate both sides of the Equation (A45) w.r.t ẑl t,j and ẑl t,k , where j, k ∈ {1, • • • , n} and j ̸ = kyields0 =n i=1∂ 2 ln P (z l t,i |û) (∂z l t,i ) 2•∂z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,j•∂z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,k+∂ ln P (z l t,i |û) ∂z l t,i•∂ 2 z l t,i ∂ẑ l t,j ∂ẑ l t,k+∂|J h l t | ∂ẑ l t,k t,j ∂ẑ l. (A46)A37)we have case.∂z l t,i ∂ẑ π(l) t,j̸ = 0 and∂z s t,i π(s) ∂ẑ t,j̸ = 0. Let us discuss it case by case. We can discuss it in the following• If z l t is not adjacent to z s t , we have have ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l 1 t-1,k • ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l 2 t,o = 0, which leads to ẑπ(l) tis not adjacent to ∂z l t t ∂ẑ π(j) = 0.ẑπ(s) t. Using Equation (A33), we• If block z l t is adjacent to block z s t , we have set of z i t is empty, there exists at least one index k such that z k ẑπ(i) t is adjacent to ẑπ(j) t t is adjacent to z i . The intimate neighbor t but not adjacent to z j t . Similarly, we have the same structure on the estimated Markov network,which means that we have ∂c l t,i ∂ẑ l 1 t-1,k •ẑπ(k) t ∂c s t,j ∂ẑ l 2 t,ois adjacent to = 0, which leads to ẑπ(i) t but not adjacent to ∂z l t,i t,j ∂ẑ π(s) = 0.ẑπ(j) t. Using Equation (A36)In conclusion, we always have∂z l t,i t,j ∂ẑ π(s)= 0, meaning that there exists a permutation π of the estimatedblocks, such that z l t and zπ(l) tis one-to-one corresponding.
, • • • , x T ). To achieve this goal, we should simultaneously capture long-range structure spanning hundreds of steps and fine-grained, moment-to-moment variability. Collapsing every timescale into a single latent layer forces one hidden state to shoulder both roles. This entangles context with short-term detail, squanders model capacity on resolving incompatible dependencies, and obscures the semantics of the latent dimensions-making directed manipulation or counterfactual sampling nearly impossible.By contrast, an explicit hierarchical latent structure allocates a dedicated timescale to each layer: a slow-clock top tier encodes global intent or seasonality, intermediate tiers refine meso-level patterns, and a fast-clock bottom tier captures instantaneous noise. This separation prevents semantic mixing, lets the model reuse parameters efficiently, and provides clearly interpretable handles for controllable generation (e.g., editing only high-level intent while preserving fine detail).
Table A8 :A8Experiment results on other datasets.ETThStocksMujocofmriCHiLD0.111(0.029) 0.001(0.000) 0.238(0.055)0.025(0.001)KoVAE0.120(0.009) 0.095(0.013) 0.024(0.009)1.086(0.142)Context-FID ScoreDiffusion-TS 0.116(0.010) 0.147(0.025) 0.013(0.001) TimeGAN 0.300(0.013) 0.103(0.013) 0.563(0.052) IDOL 0.077(0.013) 0.022(0.002) 0.062(0.012)0.105(0.006) 1.292(0.218) 0.065(0.002)cwVAE0.892(0.059) 0.807(0.252) 1.010(0.195)0.896(0.103)TimeVAE0.805(0.186) 0.215(0.035) 0.251(0.015) 14.449(0.969)CHiLD0.008(0.000) 0.001(0.000) 0.001(0.000)0.079(0.003)KoVAE0.045(0.006) 0.007(0.002) 0.203(0.031) 11.832(0.007)Correlational ScoreDiffusion-TS 0.049(0.008) 0.004(0.001) 0.193(0.027) TimeGAN 0.210(0.006) 0.063(0.005) 0.886(0.039) 23.502(0.039) 1.411(0.042) IDOL 0.002(0.000) 0.006(0.000) 0.002(0.000) 0.098(0.003)cwVAE0.070(0.001) 0.053(0.001) 0.050(0.001) 18.434(0.030)TimeVAE0.111(0.020) 0.095(0.008) 0.388(0.041) 17.296(0.526)
Table A9 :A9Experiment results of different model variants on the Humaneva-Box and Humaneva-Throwcatch datasets.BoxThrowcatchModelContext-FID Score Correlational Score Context-FID Score Correlational ScoreCHiLD0.007(0.001)0.021(0.002)0.063(0.056)0.662(0.007)CHiLD-KL0.038(0.003)0.637(0.006)0.077(0.0044)0.974(0.0039)CHiLD-C0.017(0.0034)0.036(0.0015)0.093(0.011)1.077(0.0098)
			Illustration shows a first-order Markov structure, our method can extend to higher-order dependencies.
			The subscript denotes the observations from t -L to t + L time steps.
			The null space or kernel of an operator L to be the set of all vectors which L maps to the zero vector: null L = {v ∈ V : Lv = 0}.
			https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/wetter/
			https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020MS002203
			https://climatedata.ibs.re.kr/data/cesm2-lens