Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Hubei University · Key Laboratory of Intelligent Sensing System and Security (Hubei University), Ministry of Education · School of Economics and Management, Wuhan University · Baidu Inc. · Independent Researcher
Task performance need not determine which intervention mechanism an agent retains. We study causal retention: whether a frozen learned state answers a mechanism-probe map fixed independently of training, including action, context, direct target, value, and delay. For finite structural causal model classes, the optimal probe error is a Bayes decision risk. It vanishes exactly when every learning-interface fiber lies within one probe-answer fiber; any state obtained by post-processing that interface inherits the same lower bound. A posterior-coverage theorem characterizes budgeted retesting, while an exact edit decomposition shows that the shifted set is the unique support of an error-free target update. Causal Core implements these conditions through evidence-gated writing, readout filtering, temporal credit, hidden-context setup, and local diagnostic updates. Experiments cover finite causal systems, continuous simulators, an official TD-MPC2 world model, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. A frozen Qwen last-layer probe reaches 0.958 balanced accuracy on source mechanisms but 0.583 on changed delays; the gated mechanism state reaches 1.000 and accepts only 0.056 of synchronized-readout candidates. In TD-MPC2, five target states per actuator recover effect-sign accuracy from 0.057 to 0.948 without degrading stable responses. Causal retention is therefore distinct from task sufficiency and source-domain decodability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Interface collapse and causal retention. A task interface can merge probe-distinct SCMs. A refined interface retains the answer map and supports selective adaptation.
Figure 2: Fixed-probe target and adaptation outcomes.
Figure 3: Distributional TD-MPC2 responses under one actuator remapping.
Figure 4: Qwen hidden-state retention on held-out mechanism families.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Target F1
FP
Readout FP
Hidden recall
Hidden FP
Causal Core context search
0.793
1.063
0.000
0.458
0.000
Conditional discovery, tuned
0.640
8.438
6.813
0.417
3.250
Conditional discovery, readout oracle
0.763
1.938
0.000
0.417
1.500
Tuple lift, tuned
0.650
8.000
7.438
0.479
10.875
Tuple lift, readout oracle
0.789
1.313
0.000
0.500
6.188
Latent world model, tuned
0.239
48.688
16.250
0.250
46.750
Appendix
Table 1: Matched finite-SCM baselines.
Task
Ranking signal
Ranking predictor
Causal Core
Noisy-hidden ranking
Source rank 0.521
Target F1 0.000 ; hidden 0.000
Target F1 0.764 ; hidden 0.672
Renamed adaptation
Source/target rank 0.865/0.500
AdaptScore 0.000
AdaptScore 1.000
Semantic-readout adaptation
Source/target rank 0.756/0.428
AdaptScore 0.000
AdaptScore 1.000
Appendix
Table 2: Ranking and selective-adaptation results.