cs.CLAug 12, 2026

Causal Structure is Inducible but Functionally Decoupled: The Routing/Readout Boundary of a Typed Mechanism Library

Authors: Xining Xun

Abstract

When a language model answers an interventional question, the computation it must perform depends on the type of evidence the query requires. We report a decoupling in how a transformer organizes causal knowledge: slot-by-type structure induced by type-level supervision organizes routing, yet remains functionally decoupled from answer readout. We establish this with a typed mechanism library -- discrete mechanism slots partitioned by evidence type, auditable at the state level -- on a causal-world benchmark with exact interventional ground truth, under a frozen protocol, at two scales (22.6M and 125M). Four preregistered findings. (i) Origin. Slot-by-type organization is induced by type-level supervision: absent in architecturally identical unsupervised controls, not buyable by content-free gating labels, and statistically attributable to the supervision signal, replicating at 125M under a powered preregistered protocol (all nine cells passed). (ii) Boundary. The induced structure is a typed routing index with a sharp routing/readout boundary: slot codes scaffold routing but do not drive answer readout (∣Δy^∣≤3.4×10−6|Δ\hat{y}| \le 3.4\times10^{-6}, zero collateral, three seeds, stable across a 5.6x scale window) -- we therefore make no behavioral-editability claim. (iii) Cost. The structure is free: LM quality matches a parameter-matched monolith within 0.0082 nats. (iv) Trust. The library state is exactly local under edit and bit-exactly revertible -- 250 single-edit and 1,000 stacked reverts per seed, zero failures. We further find that the unsupervised null itself moves with scale, so comparisons reusing a null calibrated at one scale may be confounded at another. Every claim is tied to a preregistered, machine-checkable criterion archived before the data it governs; the full audit trail, including one criterion we failed and how the frozen protocol handled it, is released as an appendix.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 5, 2026cs.LG

ReplaySCM: A Benchmark for Executable Causal Mechanism Induction from Interventions

Most causal benchmarks for language models score local answers or graph structure. We introduce ReplaySCM, a 1,300 item benchmark for executable causal mechanism induction from finite interventional evidence. Each item contains binary worlds generated by a latent fully observed acyclic Boolean structural causal model (SCM). A system must output a mechanism map in a restricted Boolean DSL; the submission is parsed, checked for legality and acyclicity, and replayed on training and held-out intervention worlds. Scoring uses replay behavior rather than formula strings, so syntactically different mechanisms receive credit when they behave correctly. ReplaySCM varies the structural information disclosed to the model through Ordered, Block-order, Hidden-order, and Hidden-roots settings, and includes Alternative-SCM tasks that supply a valid reference SCM and ask for a semantically distinct alternative that fits the training worlds, together with a separating intervention and witness. Frontier LLMs infer parts of the functional-parent structure, but held-out replay drops sharply when order or root structure is hidden. We also evaluate a matched support-audit ladder: Original, Extra Worlds, and Counterexample Audit (CEx), that raises mean local predecessor-pattern coverage from 0.8949 to 0.9815 to 1.0; under the audited searches, no discovered semantic alternative remains consistent with the training worlds. The Ordered/Hidden-order gap persists under this stronger evidence. ReplaySCM complements answer-level causal reasoning and graph-discovery benchmarks by evaluating executable replay generalization from finite interventional evidence, without claiming unique identification of the latent SCM.
Serafim Batzoglou
Topic pending
AskPDF
Jul 31, 2026cs.CL

Evidence-Type Competition: When Can Interventional Data Teach Language Models Causal Direction?

Interventional data is widely regarded as the gold standard for teaching models causal reasoning. We test this assumption in a fully controlled synthetic environment pitting observational correlation against causal effect, and find it fails instructively. In Simpson's-paradox worlds, where the two have systematically opposite signs, increasing the fraction of interventional samples in pretraining does not improve causal direction: the magnitude of the model's do()-response grows monotonically, yet its sign is copied from the observational context. What governs whether interventional evidence is used is not the training mixture but the evidence type present in the context at inference time. Under an identical training recipe, a purely observational context induces systematic sign reversal in 29/50 worlds, a mixed context in 19/50, while aligned interventional probes alone yield 41/50 correct. Erasing observational evidence from the context immediately releases the suppressed causal interpolation ability (ratio_true = +0.56); a four-state content manipulation shows the switch is content-mediated and graded. The suppression is stable across training seeds (11/11 strong reversals persist on a matched-protocol second seed) and robust as a rate at 0.93B parameters (31.8% vs. 6% reversals in the matched probe-only arm), even as absolute gains shrink four-fold. An external audit on CLadder exposes a learned positive-effect prior with a two-layer structure: sign-randomized retraining removes it in-distribution but not out-of-distribution. We summarize: the capability lives in the weights; the switch lives in the context, and activation patching localizes the switch to the middle layers' observational rows. We further quantify the sampling noise floor of probe-based causal evaluation and an evidence-averaging protocol that cuts sign errors from 26% to 9%.
Xining Xun
Causal InterventionInterpolation
AskPDF
Jun 21, 2026cs.CL

Words as Difference Makers: How Large Language Models Determine Causal Structure in Text

Because large language models (LLMs) are impressively successful in predicting text, it appears that they must have access to a 'world model' representing causal and definitional structure. However, the dominant formalisms of modern causal inference -- Judea Pearl's interventionist approach and the Neyman-Rubin potential outcomes framework -- struggle to illuminate how LLMs learn causal structure. I resolve this puzzle by arguing that LLMs employ a specific inductive approach based on a difference-making logic -- sometimes called variational induction. I demonstrate how central aspects of this logic are realized during training, where LLMs require enormous amounts of text data from a wide range of contexts to identify difference- and indifference-makers within word sequences. Furthermore, I analyze specific architectural features of LLMs -- such as token embeddings and self-attention -- to determine their roles in variational induction. The difference-making logic of LLMs fundamentally parallels the experimental method, where causal relations are derived by systematically varying individual circumstances to determine their influence on a phenomenon.
Wolfgang Pietsch
Causal ReasoningVariational
AskPDF