Modern Artificial Intelligence achieves remarkable predictive power by optimizing statistical risk functionals over vast corpora. Yet a gap separates this from genuine intelligence: the inability to distinguish correlation from causation. This paper argues that causal inference (identifying mechanisms invariant under intervention) is AI's indispensable statistical conscience. Without causal grounding, AI systems are correlation machines: powerful in familiar domains, brittle under distribution shift, and biased in high-stakes settings. Three contributions develop this argument. First, a Statistical Necessity Theorem for Causal Generalization: any algorithm achieving out-of-distribution generalization must encode causal structure, formalizing the distinction between prediction P(Y|X) and intelligence P(Y|do(X)). Second, a unified framework connects Pearl's do-calculus, the Potential Outcomes framework, Double Machine Learning, and Invariant Risk Minimization as a family of Causal Statistical Estimators, each identifying interventional distributions under different assumptions. Third, three AI failure modes (hallucination in large language models, reward hacking in reinforcement learning from human feedback, and degradation under distribution shift) are manifestations of causal blindness, each admitting a principled statistical remedy. Trustworthy AI is, at its core, a problem of causal statistics. The statistical community is not merely equipped to solve it -- it is the only community with the foundational tools to do so rigorously.
As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge. However, the core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously, especially while preserving utility. This position paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI. We ground our arguments in re-interpreting trustworthy AI trade-offs as incompatible invariance requirements under different changes to the data-generating process. We then illustrate this argument through case-study analyses from the literature and a stylized synthetic-data simulation, showing that causality provides a unifying framework for understanding how trade-offs in trustworthy AI arise and how they can be softened or resolved through selective invariance. This perspective applies to both classical ML models and large-scale FMs. Finally, we outline open challenges and opportunities for using causality to build both trustworthy and high-performing AI.
This paper addresses Carl Hempel's longstanding problem of statistical ambiguity in inductive-statistical inference, in which contradictory predictions are derived from statistical laws. To avoid such predictions, Carl Hempel proposed the Requirement of Maximal Specificity (RMS) for the statistical laws used in the inference. An analysis of the RMS refinements made by Wesley Salmon, Alberto Coffa, and James Fetzer led to the following definition of maximally specific statistical laws: "the lawlike premises of an adequate explanation must specify all and only those properties whose presence or absence made a difference to the occurrence of its explanandum-phenomenon." However, there was no proof of a solution to the statistical ambiguity problem based on this definition. We use Nancy Cartwright's definition of causes that raise probabilities across background contexts, and then introduce the concept of Causal Rules. Then we define a special semantic probabilistic inference procedure that incrementally refines these causal rules by incorporating all statistically relevant information. This procedure yields Maximally Specific Causal Relationships (MSCRs), for which we prove (Theorem 1) that predictions derived from them are consistent. This resolves the statistical ambiguity problem. The semantic probabilistic inference procedure provides a probabilistic causal learning system, which may be used in such new areas as Causal AI and Causal Machine Learning. They fundamentally explore causal inference as a tool for understanding cause-and-effect relationships within complex systems. Properties similar to RMS remain under discussion. Several notions related to RMS are considered: invariant feature learning, invariant causal prediction, and spurious association.
We introduce CausaLab, a scalable environment for evaluating interactive causal discovery by LLM agents. Unlike prior evaluations, CausaLab evaluates both whether an agent can solve a problem using causal evidence and whether its answer is grounded in a faithful recovered causal mechanism. Each episode places an agent in a synthetic laboratory: it receives prior measurement records, intervenes on a manipulator crystal, and predicts the resonance frequency of a held-out reactor crystal governed by the same mechanism. The hidden data-generating process is a randomly sampled structural causal model (SCM), so success requires recovering both a causal graph and structural equations rather than recalling prior knowledge. Experiments show a persistent gap between prediction and mechanism recovery: in the purely observational 6-node setting, GPT-5.2-high reaches 92% task accuracy but only 0.471 all-edge F1. Mixed observation-intervention strategies improve structural fidelity, while pure intervention remains difficult even for strong agents. We identify premature stopping as a major weakness and show that consistency verification mitigates it. CausaLab therefore separates predictive success from causal understanding and exposes current LLM agents' limits as experimental causal reasoners.