GENESIS: Towards Explainable Causal Discovery

Causal Discovery (CD) from observational data faces two fundamental challenges. First, purely statistical methods often lack the power to resolve structural ambiguities in low-sample regimes. Second, although LLM-assisted hybrid approaches improve structure recovery through semantic reasoning, the influence of that reasoning on individual edge decisions remains largely opaque. Consequently, existing hybrid methods fail to satisfy a fundamental requirement: explaining why a particular edge is included or excluded in the learned directed acyclic graph (DAG). This is critical in real-world applications, where no ground-truth DAG exists and every structural decision must be independently justified. We formalize this requirement as decision traceability, requiring every inferred edge to be supported by auditable statistical evidence, Markov Blanket consistency, or explicit domain reasoning. We propose GENESIS, an explainable hybrid CD framework that decomposes graph construction into interpretable decision points. GENESIS first identifies and scores three-node structural motifs, including chains, forks, and colliders, to establish transparent structural priors, then progressively refines the graph by integrating these priors with observational evidence, invoking domain knowledge only when statistical evidence is insufficient. By design, every edge decision is resolved through an auditable source of evidence. Experiments show that GENESIS achieves 100% decision traceability across all settings, establishing explainability as a first-class objective in causal discovery. Despite this additional requirement, GENESIS consistently outperforms purely statistical CD methods on the majority of benchmark datasets across all sample regimes in terms of Structural Hamming Distance (SHD), while achieving performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLM-assisted approaches.

interwhen: A Generalizable Framework for Verifiable Reasoning with Test-time Monitors

We present a test-time verification framework, interwhen, that ensures that the output of a reasoning model is valid wrt. a given set of verifiers. Verified reasoning is an important goal in high-stakes scenarios such as deploying agents in the physical world or in domains such as law and finance. However, current techniques either rely on the generate-test paradigm that verifies only after the final answer is produced, or verify partial output through a step-extraction paradigm where the task execution is externally broken down into structured steps. The former is inefficient while the latter artificially restricts a model's problem solving strategies. Instead, we propose to verify a model's reasoning trace as-is, taking full advantage of a model's reasoning capabilities while verifying and steering the model's output only when needed. The key idea is meta-prompting, identifying the verifiable properties that any partial solution should satisfy and then prompting the model to follow a custom format in its trace such that partial outputs can be easily parsed and checked. We consider both self-verification and external verification and find that interwhen provides a useful abstraction to provide feedback and steer reasoning models in each case. Using self-verification, interwhen obtains state-of-the-art results on early stopping reasoning models, without any loss in accuracy. Using external verifiers, interwhen obtains 10 p.p. improvement in accuracy over test-time scaling methods, while ensuring 100% soundness and being 4x more efficient. The code for interwhen is available at https://github.com/microsoft/interwhen