Causal

Differentiable causal discovery methods increasingly encode expert priors as forbidden-edge constraints enforced by an Augmented Lagrangian (ALM) penalty, on the assumption that a data-adaptive relaxation mechanism will discount and eventually override a rule the data consistently contradicts. We show this design, which we call \emph{guide, not bind}, fails for two independent, precisely characterized reasons, and that directly repairing both restores it only partially. First, sequential penalty-ramping ALM suppresses a wrongly-forbidden true edge before any counterfactual check can detect it: we give three necessary conditions any adaptive relaxation must satisfy to avoid this (Proposition~\ref{prop:conditions}), prove that DADU---the natural relaxation rule this paper introduces as the object of study---violates all three (Corollary~\ref{cor:dadu_failure}), and confirm the failure across 3{,}072 training runs spanning graphs from 4 to 32 nodes, where a single wrong prior suppresses a true edge in 87--97% of trials under DADU. Second, and independent of any fix to the mechanism, we prove in closed form that the standard correlation-matching objective ties a true edge and its reverse to an identical cost of exactly $2r^2$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:tie}), not because the underlying equal-variance model is unidentifiable, but because normalizing to correlation discards exactly the variance information that would make it identifiable; covariance matching instead separates the two directions by a provable margin of at least $w_0^4$ (Lemma~\ref{lem:separation}).

Reasoning traces of large language models are widely read as containing "breakthrough" moments and early-legible fates. Both readings rest on measurements missing a counterfactual control at the level of the claim; we supply both controls. First, a restart-controlled truncation probe separates when a solution fits the continuation budget from when a prefix carries value that fresh computation cannot buy, comparing per-anchor continuation solve rates against from-scratch restart curves at matched total generated-token budget. Applied to 178 problem-model cells (89 MATH problems x two small open models, an outcome-blind but difficulty-targeted cohort), exactly 1 of 178 cells survives as prefix-limited; restart dose-response separates a compute-starved model from a capability-limited one; and wherever the matched budget lies inside the restart grid, continuing the model's own prefix beats restarting (9 of 9) -- predominantly compute compression rather than expanded reachability. Second, a pre-registered, difficulty-controlled test finds no detectable outcome information in early-window internal signals beyond a problem-difficulty baseline, and two generation-free analyses of public corpora show why this control is needed: a trace-blind difficulty proxy reaches AUROC 0.873 on 192K DeepSeek-R1 generations -- inside the published probe range -- and a closely matched reconstruction of the closest published early-window positive recovers a comparable pooled result (0.849) while within problem it is statistically indistinguishable from chance at all ten anchors (0.496 at t=4); a post-hoc within-targeted probe finds only a small average residual, concentrated in three low-failure problems. High pooled probe AUROCs cannot by themselves establish within-attempt information; a question-only baseline or within-problem evaluation is required.

When a statistical agency or regulator releases synthetic data in place of sensitive records, it chooses the generator that produces the table, and can shape that generator so unfair pathways are absent. DECAF made this concrete on one non-private GAN: three fairness definitions become three sets of edge cuts on the generator's causal graph. Whether the mechanism belongs to DECAF, or to causal factorisation itself, was untested. We port all three definitions to nine generators from three unrelated families (marginals-based, GAN, and diffusion, each with differentially private variants), across three levels of formal privacy guarantee, over 2,520 matched-pair runs on Adult and COMPAS datasets. The mechanism transfers everywhere, and our new causal diffusion backbone yields the fairest release of any family we tested, at fidelity close to the marginals tier. Applying the cut barely moves fidelity, only costs a downstream classifier about $0.07$ to $0.15$ AUC on average, and adding privacy guarantees don't make the data less fair.

Causal inference is the practice of estimating the effect of a treatment or intervention from data. It traditionally requires a bespoke pipeline for every new problem: first proposing a causal mechanism, selecting a compatible estimator, and finally training it. Meanwhile, across diverse settings and modalities, much of machine learning has shifted to the paradigm of foundation models: networks pretrained once at scale and applied to new tasks without fine-tuning. Causal foundation models (CFMs) bring this paradigm to causal inference. CFMs are pretrained neural networks that estimate causal quantities, such as the average treatment effect, on entirely new datasets using in-context learning without requiring model updates. This work provides a practical introduction to this emerging area. We summarize the necessary background in causal inference and machine learning before discussing CFMs. Throughout, we include example code and Jupyter notebooks.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) is widely used to reduce the cost of serving large language models (LLMs), but its accuracy cost is uneven and is often tuned per model. We study where quantization damage occurs and how to allocate a small additional precision budget. Using causal mixed-precision intervention as ground truth (raise each layer to 8-bit in turn and measure the accuracy it recovers) across 9 open-weight models in 4 architecture families, we test 3 intuitive hypotheses: that quantization damage lives in task circuits, where the model computes, or in weight statistics. None of them predicts which layers benefit from restored precision. Recovery is instead diffuse: for 8 of 9 models, recovering 75% of the gap takes roughly half the layers; the lone exception, Qwen3-8B, is sharply concentrated. At a matched precision budget, spending it globally on finer quantization granularity beats locally repairing the most recoverable layers for all 8 group-128-compatible models (all but OpenLLaMA, whose width rules out group-128), by 21-52 points, including the concentrated Qwen3-8B. We report 2 secondary findings: the residual is budget-limited (8-bit is near-lossless in our evaluation across RTN, GPTQ, and AWQ), and the location of peak recovery correlates with architecture within a family, though not across families. Within this budget setting, global granularity is a better default than selectively protecting critical layers. More broadly, cheap signals that correlate with quantization damage do not necessarily identify where restoring precision improves accuracy; this must be tested with causal intervention.

Feature-based newsvendor models use observable covariates to tailor inventory decisions, aiming to balance holding and shortage costs under demand uncertainty. However, high-dimensional feature sets often hinder interpretability and inflate data collection and implementation costs. This paper studies variable selection for the feature-based newsvendor problem under a hard cardinality constraint on the number of selected features. We formulate the resulting $\ell_0$-constrained empirical newsvendor problem with $\ell_2$-regularization, establish its computational hardness, and develop a mixed-integer second-order cone programming reformulation that strengthens the standard Big-$M$ formulation. To enable scalability beyond exact optimization, we develop a randomized-rounding algorithm with a bi-criteria guarantee and a greedy heuristic. Statistically, we provide theoretical analysis of the resulting sparse policy estimator, including finite-sample estimation error, out-of-sample risk bounds, and support recovery guarantees. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real data illustrate the computational and statistical trade-offs among various baselines. Our results demonstrate that the proposed variable selection framework achieves competitive out-of-sample operational costs while using substantially fewer covariates.

Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in free-form text, leaving their beliefs implicit and difficult to test or revise. We introduce EvoSCM, which equips scientific agents with explicit structural causal models that evolve as new experimental evidence is collected. EvoSCM maintains a population of competing SCM hypotheses, each encoding a candidate causal explanation of the environment, and evolves them through a closed discovery loop. In each round, the agent abduces latent mechanisms from accumulated evidence, designs discriminative interventions, and commits to falsifiable predictions that it tests through experimentation. Discrepancies between prediction and observation are inductively distilled into correction rules that revise the causal structures and mechanisms of each hypothesis, and the agent then deductively validates the revised population against accumulated evidence and structural consistency to guide the next round. We evaluate EvoSCM on DiscoverPhysics, a benchmark requiring agents to uncover the hidden dynamics of noncanonical physical worlds through experimentation. EvoSCM consistently improves scientific discovery over baselines, yielding more accurate explanations and predictions while making more effective use of experimental interactions.

In many settings, studying causal questions based on text data requires adjusting for confounding information within texts. Yet there is a tradeoff in constructing text representations for adjustment: they must be sufficiently large and/or dense to preserve the confounding variables necessary for unbiased effect estimation, but sufficiently small and/or sparse to satisfy finite-sample overlap and yield low-variance estimates. To address this tradeoff, we turn to sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and propose a novel causal adjustment pipeline that iteratively selects a minimal set of SAE features via conditional independence tests. We find that SAE representations achieve better adjustments (lower bias and and higher coverage) than alternative representations in standard semi-synthetic evaluations with binary confounders, and their interpretability offers opportunities for falsification. We also introduce a more realistic semi-synthetic evaluation that uses multi-label data as the unobserved confounders and find off-the-shelf adjustment methods require increased investigation for these more complex settings. Code: https://github.com/mianzg/sae-text-confounder

Emotion is expressed in text along a wide spectrum, from surface lexical cues to inferences entangled with content. Most layer-wise analyses of emotion in LLMs use a single corpus, leaving open whether the depth at which emotion becomes accessible is a property of the model or also of the text source. We investigate this across three datasets spanning different degrees of explicitness and contextualization in emotion expression (Twitter posts, Reddit comments, and autobiographical narratives) and eight 1B--9B open-weight LLMs from the Llama, Qwen, and Granite families. We combine layer-wise probing with offline feature scaling and online forward interventions, transfer analyses, and an early-exit classifier. We find that (i) the best probing layer shifts systematically across corpora, from input-adjacent layers to over half model depth, and this ordering persists after matching label-by-length-bin distributions; (ii) across the evaluated settings, forward-pass interventions on probe-selected bands reduce test accuracy by 5--6 points more than same-width random bands ($q < 0.01$); (iii) selected bands transfer across datasets and emotion categories, suggesting partially shared affective information rather than strictly per-emotion substrates; and (iv) probe-selected early-exit representations outperform full-depth exits by $6.9$ percentage points on average.

TRACE (Math & Lienhart, arXiv:2602.01135) reads causal graphs over event types out of a pretrained autoregressive sequence model by thresholding a per-position conditional-mutual-information estimate at a fixed tau. We independently replicate its headline synthetic result: with tau selected on a validation split, mean per-sequence F1 against exact interventional truth reaches 0.90-0.91 at vocabulary size 1000 (paper: 0.91) and 0.86-0.91 from 100 to 2000. First, the optimal threshold is pinned to the truth margin, not to any constant: at every size the errors at tau* straddle the delta = 0.05 margin defining ground truth (missed true edges lie just above it, accepted false ones just below), and the blind optimum lands near delta/2 times the estimator's calibration, confirmed out of sample at 5000. Second, at a single global threshold TRACE mostly recovers a direct, adjacent-influence graph: lag-1 true edges are recalled at 0.97-0.99, while true edges at lag 2 or more read orders of magnitude lower---the reading-scale price of randomizing mediating positions, which an exact test of direct causal effect requires when the truth is unknown. A per-lag threshold family recovers a third to a half of lag-2 truth; on lag-uniform data one validated threshold recalls every lag at 0.40-0.87, 8-26 pp below an atomic-intervention control at lags 3-6. Third, the default lag decay of the paper's synthetic benchmark concentrates about 85% of interventional truth at lag 1 and pushes the rest below the estimator's noise floor, so headline F1 there certifies lag-1 recovery only and conflates the benchmark's skew with the algorithm's own limit; a flatter decay separates the two. Fourth, F1 saturates from N = 2 particles at the selected threshold---a property of the threshold's margin over the noise floor, not of the estimator, which converges as N^(-1/2). We distill five practitioner rules.

Across the full Pythia suite (160M-12B, eight checkpoints, four task families), a linear probe can read a target variable from the residual stream as early as step 1,000 at every scale -- yet steering along that same reading direction remains null-equivalent in 43 of 48 model-checkpoint cells. Internal readability systematically outruns causal efficacy, and the lag does not shrink with scale. We call this structure lagged coupling and decompose it into three dissociable tracks: (i) internal readability, saturated (AUROC >= 0.990) from the first checkpoint everywhere; (ii) behavioral readability, which develops gradually and progressively later at larger scales (12B reaches 0.909 only at the final checkpoint); (iii) causal efficacy, almost always null-equivalent, occasionally counterproductive early, with one isolated positive pulse (12B, step 8,000, z = +2.49) our grid cannot resolve. The ordering is dominantly read-before-write (11/11 units, no inversion). Representation headroom along the probe direction grows up to 57x with training and scale while causal write-in stays below 0.11% of headroom -- the variable is increasingly written into the representation and increasingly ignored by the readout. Under a fully pre-registered protocol, both single-onset hypotheses resolve INDETERMINATE (scale slope +0.24, 95% CI [-0.60, +0.87]; time vote 3:3) -- a disciplined negative explained by the three-track decomposition. A pre-registered OLMo-2 replication preserves the direction at attenuated magnitude. Our results caution against inferring steerability from probe accuracy and establish a developmental bottleneck: representation formation reliably outpaces causal readout consolidation.

Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.

Conditional independence tests (CITs) test for conditional dependence between two random objects $X$ and $Y$ given a third random object $Z$. Existing CITs have limited applicability to high-dimensional data, especially multimodal data like text. However, we show that such tests are of interest for large language model (LLM) outputs, where we test whether an output $X$ generated from a source text $Z$ carries information about an attribute $Y$ beyond $Z$ itself. For this purpose, we propose embedded CITs (eCITs), which embed $X$ and $Z$ and apply an existing CIT to the resulting representations and to $Y$. We show that, provided the embedding of $Z$ is sufficient, i.e. retains the information $Z$ carries about either $Y$ or the representation of $X$, the null hypothesis transfers from $X$ and $Z$ to their representations, so that a CIT valid for the embedded hypothesis is valid for the original one. We further give conditions for equivalence of the two hypotheses, and show that sufficiency weakens to mean sufficiency when the embedded test targets conditional mean independence. We propose a semi-synthetic simulation design to assess type I error (T1E) control and power of the eCITs for given embedding maps on a specific dataset and task, and use it to evaluate them on our application. Applying the eCITs to German Parliament speeches, we find for all combinations of embedding maps considered that the summaries of two LLMs contain information about the speaker's faction and gender beyond the speech they were generated from.

Effective humanitarian response depends on the rapid synthesis of heterogeneous, high-volume information sources - a task that routinely exceeds human analytical capacity in the critical early hours of a crisis. We present a pipeline that combines structured disaster records from EM-DAT with unstructured documents from ReliefWeb and the European Media Monitor (EMM) to produce source-grounded disaster storylines and causal knowledge graphs supporting situational awareness for responders and analysts. Using Retrieval-Augmented Generation, the pipeline extracts structured storylines - tabular event profiles covering 17 fields, from severity and key drivers to child-sensitive impact indicators - and constructs causal knowledge graphs where each node and edge is enriched with citation-grounded explanatory narratives, enabling full traceability back to primary sources. We evaluate the system on three diverse crisis use cases through a human evaluation involving 9 domain expert and 9 non-expert evaluators. Results confirm high retrieval precision, strong faithfulness of extracted causal relations, and a clear expert preference for citation-grounded components over ungrounded alternatives. The pipeline is designed to scale to the full EM-DAT catalogue, with the goal of publicly releasing a narrative-enriched version of the database.

World models are becoming core infrastructure for embodied intelligence, with action-conditioned video generation providing controllable predictions of how scenes evolve after agent interventions. Yet existing models are commonly trained with space-time-uniform mean squared error, allowing abundant background tokens to dominate the gradient while sparse interaction dynamics remain under-optimized; such uniform fitting rewards reconstructing appearance rather than learning how actions change the world. We introduce Causal Action Effect Reweighting (CAER), a general training paradigm that redistributes supervision toward the tokens whose predicted future is causally affected by the action. CAER contrasts the model's own predictions with and without action conditioning to localize these tokens online, then normalizes the resulting effect map into a weight that preserves the total coefficient mass and changes only where it is spent. This online signal requires no external annotations or offline preprocessing, avoids additional data-processing time, and scales naturally with model and dataset size. Experiments across heterogeneous action-conditioned world-model tasks show that CAER converges to better solutions than uniform MSE training, with consistent improvements in the physical consistency, controllability, and visual quality of generated videos.

Recent offline reinforcement learning (RL) studies report policies that outperform physician decisions on clinical outcomes. We conduct a systematic, partially crossed evaluation of five offline RL algorithm families and 14 reward designs in 44,894 post-2018 acute ischemic stroke patients from a nationwide registry (N = 129,033). Standard Fitted Q-Evaluation (FQE) yields an apparent policy-improvement estimate of +0.0069; adding an Early Neurological Deterioration penalty increases it to +0.0101. We identify reward-embedded confounding, in which a proxy terminal reward encodes baseline severity and prognosis as well as treatment efficacy. A 2 x 2 factorial analysis finds that terminal reward confounding accounts for 218.6% of the observed signal change, so its removal overshoots the null. After DML-inspired GBM reward residualization, the FQE estimate attenuates to +0.0033 (p = 0.132), and full deconfounding yields +0.0025 (p = 0.291). FQE-based diagnostics, T-learner analyses, and direct recurrence analyses converge away from a clinically meaningful aggregate improvement. A 1-year mRS factorial analysis replicates the attenuation. We provide an empirically motivated six-step evaluation checklist. NIHSS-stratified heterogeneity is hypothesis-generating for prospective trial design; hospital-level disagreement does not persist after full reward deconfounding.

Missing data, measurement error, and population heterogeneity are pervasive challenges in analyzing data arising from modern observational studies and machine learning applications. Although these problems frequently coexist and interact, they are often treated separately in existing works. We propose a unified probabilistic framework that jointly addresses these issues utilizing deep latent variable representation. The proposed method integrates a novel hierarchical tree-routed variational autoencoder with pattern-aware latent representations and calibration-based denoising. The framework accommodates missing data mechanisms, including MCAR, MAR, and MNAR, while simultaneously learning subgroup-specific and globally shared latent structure. The introduced reconvergent routing mechanism enables selective parameters to be shared across related subpopulations, which offers flexibility as well as improved statistical efficiency. Simulation studies demonstrate substantial improvements over existing deep generative imputation approaches under complex heterogeneous missingness and measurement-error settings. The proposed framework provides a principled approach for learning from noisy and incomplete data in modern healthcare and other high-dimensional applications.

Prediction error is widely used to evaluate nuisance-function estimators in causal inference, but its relationship with causal estimator performance may differ across performance measures. We studied this question in a partially linear model using Monte Carlo simulations. We compared ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized additive models (GAMs), XGBoost, and Double Machine Learning with XGBoost (DML-XGBoost), evaluating nuisance-function prediction error, bias, RMSE, and 95% confidence interval coverage. We also examined a simple joint-error measure based on the absolute cross-product of estimation errors from the exposure and outcome nuisance functions. Across the simulated settings, XGBoost had the lowest RMSE among the non-oracle methods, while DML-XGBoost generally provided better confidence interval coverage. Prediction error did not consistently track causal bias across methods and settings, and the method with the best point-estimation performance did not necessarily have the best confidence interval coverage. The joint-error measure was only weakly associated with causal bias and did not provide a useful standalone measure of causal performance. These results suggest that prediction error is useful for assessing nuisance-function estimation, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of the quality of the resulting causal estimator.

The key limitation of current state-of-the-art influence-based guardrails is that they do not reliably distinguish a legitimate, user-authorized action from a malicious, unauthorized action when both rely on external tool information. This ambiguity can cause benign actions to trigger unnecessary verification and intervention, reducing utility and adding latency. We expose this limitation through an authorization-equivalence audit of 96 conditions derived from 24 base cases. Within matched source comparisons, we hold authorization, the exact committed action, and its intended effect fixed, changing only whether a required value comes from the user or a legitimate tool result. Although the action remains unchanged, this harmless relocation shifts the causal signal toward the attack region in all 24 cases under both Llama and Gemma scorers. Matched unauthorized controls show that the signal remains attack-sensitive, yet the benign relocation produces a larger average score shift than the actual change in authorization. Architecture-level evaluation shows how this mismatch propagates through guardrail designs. With a semantic monitor, attack success is 0% and utility is 28%, compared with 16% and 60% without it. A shadow-based guardrail allows every tested harmless run, yet does not reject matched unauthorized actions more often overall: 57.5% of unauthorized runs pass automatically before reaching the later security check, compared with 29.2% of authorized runs. These results show that the studied causal signal reveals what shaped an action without reliably encoding whether the action was authorized, and that reference construction and routing are integral to the effective security decision.

Longitudinal cohort studies produce repeated data that enable the assessment of time-varying association patterns between exposures and health outcomes. Classical linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) can accommodate a large variety of association patterns while accounting for the irregularly spaced, partially observed measurement. But they require the analyst to pre-specify the functional form linking the exposure history to the outcome. We propose the Neural ODE-LMM, which embeds a Neural Ordinary Differential Equation (Neural ODE) within the linear mixed-effects framework: a learned vector field encodes covariate trajectories into a continuous-time latent state that drives both the fixed- and random-effect design, while preserving the standard LMM observation model. This retains classical likelihood-based inference while learning complex, potentially cumulative, covariate effects flexibly. All parameters are estimated by maximising a penalised marginal likelihood. To quantify covariate effects, we introduce contrasts of counterfactual predictions that compare the expected outcome under alternative covariate trajectories with variance estimated via the delta method. In simulations, the model recovers both instantaneous and cumulative-burden effects without prior specification of the functional form. Applied to the Trois-Cités (3C) cohort, a population-based study of 7{,}324 participants, the method reveals trajectory-dependent associations of BMI and fasting glucose with cognitive decline.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) increasingly calls for actionable counterfactual recourse, yet current methodologies face challenges related to causal invalidity, excessive cognitive burden, and predictive failure. Exhaustive causal search algorithms often require modifications to multiple attributes, whereas additive attribution-guided methods, such as SHAP, ignore higher-order feature synergies, leading to suboptimal predictive momentum and diffuse intervention effort in complex nonlinear models, such as XGBoost. To bridge this gap, we introduce actionable case-based feature importance (A-CBFI), a diagnosis-prescription integrated framework for tabular machine learning. Grounded in structural causal models (SCMs), A-CBFI isolates synergistic interaction bottlenecks and releases suppressive structural locks, translating them into targeted interventions. By mathematically separating the active user intervention space (L_{\mathrm{active}}) from downstream effects and concentrating over 98.3% of the intervention effort on diagnosed root causes, A-CBFI enables highly targeted interventions. Empirical evaluations across the financial and healthcare domains demonstrate that A-CBFI reduces the active human intervention burden by 77.0% while maintaining comparable global recourse cost to exhaustive causal baselines. By prioritizing the diagnosed causal bottlenecks, A-CBFI provides targeted and actionable recourse while maintaining causal validity and achieving full relative convergence across all causally feasible instances.

Clinical data sources such as electronic health records and wearable sensors record patient status repeatedly over follow-up, often at irregular times and on different schedules for different measurements. These data create opportunities for continuously updated, individualized risk prediction. Existing approaches, however, often simplify the temporal structure for model fitting. We introduce Random Hazard Forests (RHF), a survival tree ensemble that estimates how a patient's hazard changes in continuous time as new measurements become available. The method formulates the estimation problem directly through a nonparametric hazard likelihood for predictable covariate processes. An efficient working model guides tree construction, after which flexible time-varying hazards are estimated for each terminal node. Given any predictable covariate path, each tree follows the path through its terminal nodes over time and assembles the corresponding node-level hazards into a trajectory. Averaging these trajectories across trees yields the pathwise hazard estimate. Because routing at each time uses only the covariate state available immediately beforehand, the construction accommodates internal longitudinal covariates without lookahead. Simulations and an intensive care application show that the forest accurately estimates changing risk under irregular and asynchronous covariate updates.

An increasing number of scholars use AI to measure variables they subsequently include in downstream analyses. Although AI-measured variables are often analyzed as if observed without error, ignoring prediction errors in automated measurement leads to substantial bias and invalid confidence intervals in downstream analyses, even if AI measurement accuracy is high, e.g., above 90%. Existing solutions, such as design-based supervised learning and prediction-powered inference, combine error-prone AI-based measurements with gold-standard labels, which may be costly and difficult to obtain in some application areas. In this paper, we propose debiased inference with multiple imperfect measurements (DMM), a framework that combines multiple error-prone AI measurements to enable valid downstream inference without gold-standard labels. Building on the established results on CP decomposition, DMM assumes that these measurements are independent conditional on the latent true label and observed unit-level features, such as text features represented by embeddings. This framework allows for unknown misclassification rates to vary across annotation methods (e.g., large language models) and across units of annotation (e.g., texts). Under this assumption, we use semiparametric inference theory to prove that the DMM estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal, enabling valid inference for a wide range of downstream statistical analyses common in the social sciences. Our simulation results show that DMM yields valid inference and that adding accurate, though imperfect, measurements can improve efficiency. Focusing on common applications of large language model annotations, we also develop diagnostics to assess the conditional independence assumption.

World Models (WM) are increasingly seen as a foundation for intelligent agents that can predict, plan, and act beyond their training distribution. In this paper, we study WMs from a causal perspective across multiple levels of abstraction, ranging from perceptual observations to building a conceptual representation of the structure governing the environment dynamics. We argue that useful WMs must go beyond generative capabilities alone: they should also capture entity properties, entity-to-entity interactions, and entity-to-environment interactions that determine and explain the dynamics of a system. We provide a formal definition of Causal WMs (CWMs) grounded in the tasks they are intended to support, connecting world modelling with existing work in causal representation learning, object-centric learning, causal discovery, structural causal models, and model-based decision-making. Finally, we relate CWMs to the literature on identifiability, clarifying when the components of a WM can be recovered from data and up to which equivalence. With this, we ground WMs in representations and structures that support causal reasoning and informed decision-making.

Interactive autoregressive video generation demands both low-latency rollouts and precise online control. Few-step distillation accelerates generation by reducing denoising steps, while online control imposes a causal constraint: frames and blocks should depend on history and controls available during generation. Existing video distribution matching distillation (DMD) pipelines, however, often supervise causal few-step students using bidirectional teachers that score complete clips. The score for a target can therefore depend on future frames and controls that were unavailable when the student generated it, misaligning teacher supervision with the student's causal information set. We introduce Context-Matched Distillation (CMD), a causal DMD framework that aligns teacher supervision with the information available when each target is generated. CMD replaces bidirectional full-clip scoring with a causal teacher that evaluates each target without access to future frames or controls. The same causal teacher initializes the few-step student, establishing a consistent causal formulation across teacher training, student distillation, and inference. Beyond aligning the temporal information boundary, Prefix Scoring matches supervision to the student's realized rollout context by evaluating each target under the cached student-generated prefix that produced it. Prefix Corruption further stabilizes training by perturbing unreliable prefixes produced early in training while preserving this target-context alignment. With a simple causal formulation, CMD naturally extends to frame-wise and chunk-wise generation, long video distillation, and camera-conditioned distillation. Experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art aggregate performance among autoregressive methods on both short- and long-video benchmarks, together with substantially improved adherence to time-varying camera controls.

We present the mathematical foundations of linear independent component analysis (ICA) models based on standard literature in a self-contained note. It is aimed at readers with a background in measure-theoretic probability theory. We first develop the theory of the characteristic functions of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$, including their analyticity and the way in which they determine and characterise the distributions. We then focus on several identifiability results of ICA models with successively strengthened assumptions on the sources: from merely non-constant, to non-Gaussian, to Gaussian-free independent sources. Under the strictest assumptions, we show that the independent sources are identifiable up to translation, permutation, scales and signs, and this even in the presence of additive Gaussian noise. Furthermore, we present the online equivariant gradient descent ICA algorithm for recovering the independent sources from data, in the standard complete noiseless non-Gaussian ICA setting.

The performance of large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) largely depends on effective communication topologies. Existing topology generation methods, however, typically learn communication topologies through black-box optimization driven solely by task-level rewards. While effective, such optimization provides little insight into why particular communication edges are selected, making it difficult to identify the critical communication subgraphs responsible for successful collaboration. To address this limitation, we propose E2-Explainer, a model-agnostic framework for providing interpretable explanations of communication topologies produced by arbitrary topology generators. Specifically, we formulate topology explanation as a causal attribution problem that identifies compact communication subgraphs supported by edge-level evidence of task preservation. We obtain this evidence with a Granger-style objective that measures how masking each communication channel changes the task outcome and the stability of the final response. The resulting budgeted subgraphs are then distilled into an amortized explainer, enabling efficient post-hoc explanation without repeated edge-level evaluations at deployment. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning and coding benchmarks demonstrate that E2-Explainer identifies critical communication subgraphs that preserve successful collaboration. These subgraphs can also be executed directly to prune redundant communication edges, substantially reducing communication costs while maintaining competitive task performance.

Compositional reliability bounds for multi-agent systems multiply component reliabilities, a step licensed by a conditional-independence assumption that is routinely stated and rarely tested. We test it. Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails (log OR 6.66, 95% CI [6.38, 7.00]; phi 0.916), in a preregistered evaluation of 18,000 missions scored by deterministic code with no LLM judge. Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts; substituting a different vendor, model already different, does not -- a registered hypothesis reported as a null. The error is signed and runs against the operator: positive dependence inflates joint failure above the independence product, so redundancy is over-credited exactly when components share a model. The assumption-free alternative is often vacuous, and fitting a dependence model is worse: we prove a bootstrap bound on a fitted model's functional loses coverage of the truth as n grows, the identification gap being O(1) while the bootstrap haircut is O(n^{-1/2}). More data makes such a certificate worse, with no visible symptom. We give a finite-sample certificate assuming no dependence structure: a linear program over the joint, over a Bonferroni-Clopper-Pearson box around measured co-execution moments. It is sound, sharp for the information supplied, and monotone in the moment family. Enriching ten moment functionals to fourteen narrows the identified interval by 85.7% and lifts the certified floor from 0.2455 to 0.4116. A companion anytime-valid certificate holds type-I error at 0.0471 under optional stopping. Common dependence statistics are marginal-bounded and can reverse an apparent ordering of conditions when the compared agents fail at different rates. Contracts, scoring code, analysis scripts, and the preregistration are released.

Agentic workflows are commonly evaluated by whether they reach the correct outcome. That is insufficient in institutional settings, where a correct action may rely on the wrong authority, an unsupported completion claim, or work made stale by a later change. We define governed execution as work whose decisions, completion, and response to change are supported by inspectable provenance. We present Matrix, a deterministic causal-state layer that records authority and fact dependencies, verifies completion evidence, and selectively invalidates affected work. Across controlled comparisons, governed and direct workflows often reached the same outcomes, but only the governed path consistently preserved governing evidence, refused unsupported closure, and limited recovery to dependent tasks. A role-separated transfer challenge then failed: a deterministically enforced completeness contract severely over-blocked synthetic packets produced outside its authoring context. These results do not establish Matrix as a general accuracy enhancer; they support its primary role as an institutional integrity layer for making agentic work auditable and independently verifiable.

LLM-based simulated clients are increasingly used to train novice counselors, evaluate LLM therapists, and generate synthetic data. However, current simulators produce overly cooperative clients that disclose too readily, accept therapeutic reframes without resistance, and resolve core issues within a single session. We trace these issues to profiles that lack causal depth and behavioral mechanisms that treat all content as equally accessible. We present PatientAct, a framework for client simulation grounded in established clinical theories. Our profiles integrate the 5Ps clinical case formulation, providing causal depth without tying the design to any single therapeutic modality. During simulation, profiles include a dynamic memory layer in which items carry trust thresholds (e.g., symptoms are available early, whereas formative memories require a sustained therapeutic alliance). At each turn, the client's emotional reaction and behavior are modeled before generating a response. If the therapist approaches gated content, PatientAct expresses resistance in terms of quantity, content, and style rather than defaulting to cooperation or a single resistance pattern. We evaluate our framework on 40 clinical situations and demonstrate that it generates diverse profiles with high clinical plausibility. Moreover, PatientAct significantly outperforms the baselines, yielding substantial gains in resistance quality and behavioral realism. Our code and data will be publicly available via github.com/Sahandfer/PatientHub.

Probabilities of causation (PoCs) characterize individual causal responses that cannot be directly observed and therefore generally require partial identification. Tian and Pearl first derived theoretically sharp bounds for binary PoCs, including the probability of necessity (PN), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS). Mueller et al. subsequently tightened the bounds for binary PNS by incorporating causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. More recently, Li and Pearl, as well as Shu et al., extended PoCs to multivalued settings and derived corresponding theoretical bounds. These developments naturally raise the question of whether additional causal knowledge can further tighten the bounds in multivalued settings. This paper addresses this question by deriving tighter bounds for multivalued PoCs through the incorporation of causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. We illustrate the theoretical results with toy examples, while simulation studies further demonstrate that the proposed bounds are tighter than existing nonbinary bounds.

Causal discovery aims to uncover the underlying causal relationships given data generated from a system. The goal, however, is not merely to predict causal edges given data, but also to be able to interpret and explain either observed or hypothesized phenomena, such as a particularly large causal effect. We consider this task of conditional causal discovery and cast it as a Bayesian inference problem, in which we target the posterior over causal graphs and parameters conditional on an event such as a causal-effect constraint. Unfortunately, this poses a computational challenge: existing approaches to Bayesian causal discovery struggle when the event has small posterior mass. To address this, we adapt rare-event estimation techniques to perform inference the joint graph-parameter space. Our method gradually drives a particle population toward the constrained region while maintaining samples that approximate the conditional posterior. Empirical evaluation on synthetic graphs validates the accuracy of our approach at small and large scales, and we show in a case study on the Sachs protein dataset how our method can be used to aid scientific exploration by providing pathway-level summaries.

Predictive explanation methods attribute a model output; they do not, by themselves, attribute an intervention effect on the real-world outcome. We introduce the Causal Attribution Score (CAS), a compact score architecture for causal explanation. CAS starts from an identified interventional coalition game, allocates the joint intervention contrast with causal Shapley contributions, and converts those raw outcome-scale effects into Local CAS, Signed Local CAS, and two complementary Global CAS summaries. The innovation is not a new Shapley formula, but a local-to-global causal reporting layer with an explicit intervention target. In the known-truth benchmark, eight repeated primary-interaction simulations (n = 2,200 each, three actions) gave mean Local CAS MAE of 0.107 for coalition-aware CAS, compared with 0.173 for one-at-a-time normalisation and 0.213 for a global normalised absolute ATE vector. The paired advantage over one-at-a-time normalisation increased from -0.003 under additivity to 0.091 under strong interactions. On both empirical DoubleML datasets, 401(k) eligibility/net financial assets (n = 9,915) and Pennsylvania reemployment bonus/unemployment duration (n = 5,099), predictive SHAP/TreeSHAP rankings differed materially from Feature-CAS rankings of treatment-effect modifiers. In Pennsylvania, dep1 (exactly one dependent) moved from predictive global rank 13 to Feature-CAS rank 2 and was the leading local Feature-CAS modifier. These results isolate the added value of separating what predicts the outcome from what explains heterogeneity in an estimated causal effect.

Organizations decide whom to treat under a budget and want to know what a targeting rule would have earned before deploying it. Off-policy evaluation promises this from logged data, but the deployable rule is a deterministic top-k policy: it removes all averaging over actions, so weak overlap hits the estimate directly. We benchmark six estimators across five datasets and two known-effect sweeps, and validate the mechanisms against a non-simulated paired reference. First, weak overlap is governed by logger-target action alignment, not by logging sharpness alone: what governs support is the logger's probability of the target's actions. Sharpening a logger built from the target's own score barely moves overlap over the tested range; action-level disagreement collapses it. Effective sample size ranks this risk across logging environments, but is weak at ranking candidates within the single log a practitioner holds, and its cut point does not transfer. Second, the optimizer's curse is not fixed by cross-fitting the outcome nuisance. When the rule is fit on the data used to evaluate it, cross-fitting the nuisance alone leaves the reuse bias in place and makes it worse. Honest policy-level splitting avoids the reuse by targeting the learning procedure's value -- a change of estimand, not a de-biasing of the full-sample policy. Third, propensity-estimation error is the largest degradation we measure: an out-of-fold estimate hurts IPS more than any other stress we apply, leaves doubly-robust estimation almost unchanged, and can invert the overlap diagnostic itself. Logging is synthesized and propensities floored at 0.02, so every failure occurs with bounded weights; the floor also reduces the two tuned hybrids to their untuned parents, leaving four practically distinct estimators, and all exact-value surfaces are synthetic or semi-synthetic. We release the benchmark; public data only.

Clinical prediction models are often developed as if the outcome of interest were cleanly observed for every patient. This assumption fails when treatment decisions make the clinically relevant outcome permanently unobservable. As a case study of this problem, we consider post-cardiac-arrest neurological prognostication using a cohort of 2,497 patients, including 1,429 patients whose outcomes were rendered indeterminate by treatment decisions. These patients with indeterminate outcomes were reviewed by independent clinical experts, who provided their guesses of counterfactual outcomes about what would have happened to the patients. We refer to these patients as uncertain cases. We also have patients for whom we observe their clinically relevant outcomes; we refer to these patients as certain cases. We propose a framework for evaluating prediction models that explicitly splits the evaluation between certain and uncertain cases. Here, we cannot easily evaluate both types of cases in a uniform manner as the available target labels differ. We then propose a simple prediction model that uses target labels from both certain and uncertain cases in a manner that allows us to trade off between them. Across the proposed neural model and a collection of tabular baselines, models with similar certain-case AUROC can nevertheless differ substantially in both certain-case Brier score and their probability estimates for uncertain cases. Improving alignment with target labels of uncertain cases for our proposed model generally comes at the cost of worse accuracy on certain cases, highlighting an explicit tradeoff that standard evaluation conceals. These results show that when treatment decisions determine whether clinically meaningful outcomes remain observable, conventional evaluation metrics can miss important failure modes in the very patients for whom prognostic support matters most.

Structured potential outcomes such as microscopy images may be recorded after an unknown, unit-specific transformation. If that transformation can depend on treatment, covariates or the intrinsic outcome, raw-coordinate analyses may mix biological effects with acquisition geometry. We study the unrestricted observation model X = Γ . Y(A) and characterize its observable information: a target is uniformly recoverable exactly when it is constant on group orbits, while a Borel maximal invariant retains every measurable invariant target. We then distinguish observability from statistical losslessness. A quotient-faithful reconstruction theorem shows that quotient reduction is sufficient for the full transformed experiment exactly when the conditional law of the raw observation given treatment, covariates and the quotient has a parameter-free version. Conditional Haar contamination on a compact group yields Blackwell equivalence as a special case; it is not imposed in the main model. We also separate independent site-specific product actions from shared diagonal actions and show why componentwise canonicalization can discard relative cross-site information. Under explicit metric and kernel regularity, an approximate-contamination theorem bounds quotient-law Wasserstein error and the induced perturbation of population maximum mean discrepancy. For finite-support multichannel lattice images, we construct a maximal invariant under integer translations and quarter turns, combine its characteristic Gaussian kernel with a complete paired-swap test, and retain the original simulations and RxRx1 HUVEC study. Under the sharp null, the quotient test rejected in 0.052 of simulation replicates; at unit effect strength its power was 0.992. The primary RxRx1 contrast had an enumerated paired-swap p-value of 0.0078.

Task-arithmetic merging works until it doesn't, and the field diagnoses why by measuring interference inside the merged model. We take the most direct such measure, the exact layerwise activation cross-term of a factorial ledger, establish its causal anatomy, and then ask what it tracks. The anatomy is clean: each block mostly transports and amplifies the cross-term rather than generating it; erased, it is regenerated by the untouched marginal paths to 99% of its norm unless removed late; its output effect varies monotonically with the displacement's angle (orthogonal displacements make interference worse), and a two-assumption model derives the angle law and retro-dicts the dose curve (R^2 >= 0.99). What the measure tracks is not what the field assumes. Behavioural expert-likeness is decoupled from it across four instruments. Its cross-condition behaviour is denominator-dominated: an instruction template pins the main effect to within 1% while the absolute interaction grows 111x from two to six merged tasks, suppressing expressed interference at k=2 and amplifying it at k=6. And where merging actually collapses, the cross-term is a bystander, not the carrier: across two collapse parameterizations at two scales, even erased persistently at every position, removing it entirely repairs none of the collapse. There the output-side ratio carries no method information under a common counterfactual, while two state-space measures the field already uses rank methods correctly at both scales. All 81 predictions were frozen before their data; falsifications are reported as such. Output-side interference measurement reads the gate, the denominator, and the displacement budget, not the interference. What fails a merge is the carrier-bystander split: collapse rides in the marginal displacements while the cross-term merely accompanies it, and only state space sees the carrier.

Generating actionable financial advice from business records demands that models integrate numerical reasoning, domain knowledge, and sound judgment, while avoiding recommendations that could harm the business. Direct supervision is difficult: historical decisions are not necessarily optimal, and high-quality free-form labels are expensive to obtain. We formulate financial advice generation as a reinforcement learning problem and fine-tune an open-weight language model using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Our reward is an LLM-as-a-judge rubric that scores each recommendation across multiple binary dimensions of advice quality, augmented with a safety gate for harm prevention. Since LLM-based evaluation alone cannot confirm whether improvements reflect genuine business value rather than adaptation to the judge, we complement it with a judge-independent audit based on a standard doubly-robust Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimator. Under this observational off-policy audit, our trained LLM achieves approximately twice the estimated gross-profit lift of the strongest evaluated commercial baseline ($0.0228$ vs.\ $0.0104$), together with the lowest downside rate and the least negative tail risk of any policy evaluated. Notably, the two evaluations do not rank the baselines identically: the untrained base model places last on the judge rubric but second on the causal audit, indicating that the audit captures a signal the judge does not. Our results demonstrate that GRPO with a finance-grounded reward signal can produce substantially more useful business recommendations than commercial LLMs, and that a judge-independent causal audit is a valuable complement to, rather than a confirmation of, LLM-as-a-judge assessment in financial NLP.

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 ($|Δ\hat{y}| \le 3.4\times10^{-6}$, 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.

Coupon campaigns seek to lift both conversion and revenue, but gross merchandise value (GMV) follows a deterministic funnel from conversion to conditional order value and is zero-inflated and heavy-tailed. We propose FunnelCausalNet, an uplift estimator coupling a binary conversion head with a nonnegative conditional-value head through $μ_{\mathrm{gmv}}=μ_{\mathrm{conv}}μ_{\mathrm{val}}$. Under explicit RCT, support, rate-gap, and cross-head covariance-control assumptions, an idealized leading-order MSE comparison identifies a regime in which funnel composition can reduce pointwise variance; this is a heuristic, not a guarantee for the shared-representation neural model. The estimator is paired with marginal split-conformal CATE summaries, combined through a Bonferroni union as audit bands, and a Lagrangian budgeted allocator using RCT-anchored estimates for subsidy-aware ROI accounting. On semi-synthetic multi-tier Criteo-MT7, FunnelCausalNet's mean AUUC_GMV is within one seed standard deviation of the leading feature-interaction baseline among eleven baselines, while a controlled ablation reduces GMV effect error versus direct GMV regression by 18--48% across tested zero-inflation regimes. On de-identified industrial Hotel-Coupon RCT logs with about 4.9 million hold-out exposure records per seed, expected-outcome evaluation sweeps full LP frontiers; FunnelCausalNet has the best seed-averaged mean DeltaROI at all seven correlated anchors from 10% to 60%, which we treat as descriptive frontier consistency rather than independent significance. On sparse binary-spend public benchmarks, revenue-focused rankers can dominate uplift-curve proxies, defining an explicit regime boundary.

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) offers considerable promise for optimizing ICU treatment decisions, yet standard evaluation metrics Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Fitted Q-Evaluation (FQE) assess only behavioral imitation and cannot detect Toxic Mimicry, a failure mode in which agents replicate harmful patterns such as treatment withdrawal during comfort-care transitions. Using the MIMIC-III database, we propose the Counterfactual Clinical Audit (CCA) framework, which stress-tests RL agents through physiological perturbations anchored in Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines. We audit a Medical Decision Transformer (MedDT) and a Historical Causal Transformer (HCT-RL), the latter employing Causal Action Shielding, propensity-based importance weighting, and Conservative Q-Learning. CCA reveals that MedDT paradoxically reduces vasopressor dosage as lactate escalates, contradicting resuscitation guidelines, while HCT-RL maintains physiologically consistent responses. These findings expose a systemic misalignment between statistical fit and clinical safety, supporting counterfactual audits as a necessary evaluation standard for medical RL.

Conditional Independence (CI) tests are the statistical engine of constraint-based causal discovery: in algorithms such as PC (Peter-Clark) and FCI (Fast Causal Inference), skeleton pruning and key orientations follow directly from CI decisions. This survey reviews CI testing with emphasis on assumptions, robustness, and scalability in high-dimensional and mixed-type settings common in biomedical domains. The survey organizes widely used CI methods into six families: partial-correlation, contingency-table, regression, nearest-neighbor, kernel, and machine-learning-based. Special emphasis is provided on the robustness layers that address the limitations of these families. For each family, the survey examines when CI decisions reflect the data-generating distribution and when they fail. By this, we link test-level properties, including power decay with conditioning set size and asymmetric type I/II error consequences, to graph-level errors in skeleton recovery and v-structure orientation. The survey also compares adoption across major R and Python libraries and summarizes open challenges, including mixed-type CI testing without discretization, small-sample error control, and strategies for improving scalability of CI-testing.

Detecting or attributing a supply-chain disruption is not the same as selecting the intervention that maximizes recoverable net value. We present CriticalSCM-Bench v1, a controlled synthetic benchmark with causal ground truth, paired factual/counterfactual rollouts, and an explicit net-value objective. Relative to a full-information train-selected static benchmark, LambdaMART improves median normalized net value by 5.7--16.2%, with paired statistical support on the semiconductor and critical-material archetypes but not on digital infrastructure. On digital infrastructure, a domain-informed constant-buffer policy remains stronger, showing that greater model complexity is not uniformly justified. Across partial and delayed settings, LambdaMART retains 33--75% of full-clamp value. Stress tests further show that intervention fidelity, timing, cost, and held-out disruptions can alter policy ordering. Critical materials show the weakest out-of-distribution retention. Separately, a guarded explanation study over 540 generations preserves every fixed intervention decision after deterministic validation and template fallback, although exact wording remains unstable. Within this controlled setting, the results identify regimes in which adaptive ranking adds value and those in which simpler structural policies remain preferable.

While 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has advanced open vocabulary scene understanding, existing methods remain confined to explicit queries. They struggle to interpret implicit intents, complex spatial constraints, and commonsense reasoning required for practical embodied interactions. To address this gap, we introduce the task of reasoning 3D Gaussian segmentation and construct two benchmarks, Causal-LERF and Causal-ScanNet. These benchmarks systematically evaluate commonsense, spatial, affordance, and counterfactual reasoning. Evaluations reveal that current state of the art methods perform poorly on these reasoning challenges. Therefore, we propose CausalSplat, a framework that integrates vision-language models with 3D scene graphs to disentangle explicit structural perception from implicit logical inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CausalSplat achieves state of the art performance on our reasoning benchmarks while showing strong generalizability on standard referring and open vocabulary 3D segmentation tasks. Project Page: https://jiayuding031020.github.io/CausalSplat

Representational similarity analysis (RSA) is increasingly used to ask which learning rules give convolutional networks brain-like representations. Because biologically plausible rules such as feedback alignment, predictive coding and STDP do not scale, studies that include them train small networks on small images (typically 32x32 CIFAR) and then compare them to brain responses modeled at much higher resolution. We find that a common result in this setting, that untrained or locally trained networks rival or beat backpropagation at early visual cortex, depends strongly on the resolution at which the network is evaluated. The V1 gap between an untrained network and a backpropagation-trained one widens from -0.001 +/- 0.007 at the 32px training resolution to +0.044 +/- 0.006 at 224px, growing monotonically across six resolutions (n=5 seeds). It holds in human fMRI and, directionally, in single-seed macaque electrophysiology, along the training trajectory, and for an ImageNet ResNet-50 and a Swin-Tiny transformer trained at 224px. Four candidate mechanisms are tested and none accounts for it: train/eval resolution matching, low-level Gabor and pixel structure, the normalization state of the untrained baseline, and convergence of the pooled descriptor toward a global brightness statistic; three are excluded by interventions holding the convolutional weights bit-identical. A fifth experiment locates the effect: capping image detail at the training resolution while letting the pooled positions grow 12-fold removes about 90% of it, so the dependence is carried by image detail rather than by pooling. Separately, a single scalar luminance value per image reaches rho = 0.075 against the V1 RDM, essentially matching the untrained network's 0.076, which bounds what this style of comparison can resolve. The one learning effect that holds across resolution is backprop above untrained, at LOC.

Certified selective predictors attain whatever coverage they attain; operators impose an automation floor: answer at least a $β$-fraction of shifted target traffic with at most an $α$-fraction of answers wrong. Under bounded-ratio covariate shift we prove the Floor Certification Map: once that floor must be certified alongside the selection-conditioned risk $α$, certification acquires a feasibility frontier and a two-resource complexity map, additive up to constants: risk in labeled source, the floor in unlabeled target samples. The rates are local, needing a regular frontier margin, slack below the local-regime threshold, and lattice conditions: pre-registered with a lattice margin for the upper bounds, compatible per-slack for the lower. The displayed split is the operational route; oracle weights also allow a labeled-source floor estimate. Three model-tagged results: a lower bound (Model-B), a matching oracle-weight upper bound (Model-A), and an implementable upper bound (Model-B') valid under a pre-registered exact stratified-shift model with nuisance cost priced explicitly. The match is across these models rather than a single-model minimax theorem, and necessarily so: over the full bounded-ratio class no unknown-weight procedure matches at any sample size (Model-B is inconsistent, witnessed at $α=β=1/2$). The nuisance's necessity is only partially settled. Complexity tracks a localized accepted-region functional, not global effective sample size (ESS), on both sides, though a fixed-ESS separation theorem is left open; both lower-bound axes vanish as $β\to0$, so the floor creates the map. Empirically, the registered bite family diverges with log-log slope $-2.002$ within its pre-registered band; a 1,024-cell audit records 0 violations where the formal certificates fire; and a single-corpus SQuAD-to-NewsQA feasibility audit returns honest refusal.

Vision-language models can describe an image with remarkable accuracy, yet a more fundamental question remains unanswered: what visual information actually drives their answers? In this work, we investigate this question through causal tracing, and we observe that highly causal vision tokens often lie outside the target region. Extending the analysis to larger vision-language models reveals a similar pattern across models and corruption settings, suggesting that strong multimodal performance does not necessarily imply spatially localized causal representations. We further investigate: can these models preserve visual structure when appearance cues are removed? and find that visual cues are exploited to understand visual structures. Together, our experiments expose a gap between seeing, using, and reasoning over visual structure, and provide a causal framework for studying how visual information is transformed, preserved, and ultimately used by modern vision-language models.

The Relativity of Causal Knowledge (RCK) explains how a network of agents with different structural causal models can exchange causal knowledge through a shared interventionally consistent abstraction, or backbone. We ask the prior identification question that this transport mechanism presupposes: when is that backbone determined by the agents' private causal knowledge? In the basic two-agent common-effect case, two private causes influence one shared outcome and each agent identifies only the single-cause causal marginal relevant to its own perspective. We show that, under standard compatibility, non-degeneracy, and local overlap assumptions, those local causal marginals do not identify a unique backbone. Infinitely many joint intervention kernels can induce exactly the same private reports while disagreeing on joint interventions. We then give a conditional recovery result. Additive separability removes the hidden interaction degree of freedom, but observational residual summaries remain insufficient. Identification becomes possible when agents communicate causally identified response functions. An education value-added example illustrates why this is first a communication problem, and only then a policy-composition problem.

Not all clicks are equal. Industrial ads ranking decouples conversion probability into click-through rate (CTR) and post-click conversion rate (CVR), yet treats every click as the same event. In reality, users provide a free, self-generated signal of intent through their physical UI interactions. Different click types on the same ad exhibit a 4-fold difference in actual conversion rates. By conflating these signals, the standard CVR model under-predicts high-intent clicks and over-predicts low-intent ones, which is a bias masked by near-perfect aggregate calibration. We propose MARCO (Multi-intent Ads Ranking Composition Optimization), a framework that resolves this bias by decomposing each click by intent. Using the logged click type as a free behavioral label, MARCO trains per-intent CVR heads on homogeneous populations, and at serving time composes their per-intent CVR estimates under a predicted distribution over intents. Theoretically, we prove that decomposition never raises population risk, give the exact headroom under squared loss and non-negativity under the deployed loss, and show through a routing-efficiency dial how much of it reaches serving. Because the population-optimal score is unchanged, any gain is a finite-capacity estimation and calibration effect that we validated both offline and online. For deployment at scale, we further cast multi-impression, multi-click attribution as credit assignment with a bias-variance tradeoff analogous to RL return estimation, showing last-impression, first-click attribution is the low-bias, low-variance, deterministic choice under production constraints, and derive three consistency conditions enforced end-to-end at scale. Deployed at binary intent granularity, MARCO corrects per-intent calibration to approximately 100%, lifts conversions per click by +2.80%, and drives +0.98% cumulative improvement in topline metrics.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, accurately evaluating their latent values and biases is critical. The NLP community typically evaluates models using large, unstructured benchmarks. While effective for general capabilities, these datasets fundamentally conflate causal mechanisms: even when an aggregate bias is detected, unstructured evaluations cannot disentangle whether it stems from baseline traits, contextual confounders, or complex interactions. To address this, we introduce an analytically exact framework for the controlled behavioral evaluation of LLMs. We bridge human psychometrics with LLM mechanics by resolving gaps in design, measurement, and analysis. First, we replace unstructured prompting with fully crossed factorial experiments to systematically isolate causal main and interaction effects. Second, we eliminate Monte Carlo text sampling noise by operating directly on exact, token-level Probability Mass Functions (PMFs). Third, we derive a multivariate ordinal consensus metric and a distributional ANOVA to process these PMFs analytically. We validate our framework with a case study on consumer ethnocentrism across five LLMs, demonstrating how our approach isolates systemic country-of-origin biases that aggregate benchmarks otherwise obscure.

Scattering matrices are the standard experimental and computational description of photonic and electromagnetic devices. Passivity is explicit in the conventional incoming-outgoing matrix, whereas causality sum rules are usually formulated only after transforming the response into auxiliary variables. Here we show that these rules can be written directly in the conventional scattering matrix by removing the time advance introduced by the reference domain. Using the earliest-arrival delay of each channel, we define a domain-delayed matrix that preserves real-frequency passivity while restoring the causal time origin. Under explicit analyticity, transparency, and regularity assumptions, this matrix becomes a Schur function, enabling a Cayley-Herglotz construction. The resulting projected and determinant bounds constrain coherent channel superpositions and aggregate multichannel loss. The framework recovers Rozanov's absorber limit and spherical-multipole sum rules, while extending causality bounds to measurable quantities including insertion loss, suppressed singular-value channels, and conditional lossless delay-bandwidth trade-offs. Our work directly connects fundamental causality theory with experimentally accessible scattering data. The initial theoretical route is autonomously explored by Qiushi Engine, an AI research system for open-ended scientific discovery, and subsequently verified, refined, and developed by the authors, demonstrating a hybrid AI-human discovery workflow.

Hospital quality improvement (QI) programs routinely face multiple candidate interventions to optimize hospital flow, but existing methods struggle to estimate and rank the causal effects of such interventions. This work focuses on one of the most standard hospital metrics, the average length of stay (LOS), and its causal estimand, the average time saved. To characterize this causal effect, qualitative approaches rely on expert judgment to map patient trajectories, making them susceptible to cognitive biases; quantitative approaches rely on data-driven models, which fail when interventions are hypothetical with no historical data or have complex causal mechanisms that require clinical reasoning rather than data alone. We propose expert-guided g-computation, or egg-computation, which combines the complementary strengths of both approaches by connecting the Gantt charts commonly used to map patient trajectories with the causal DAG literature. We introduce a causal model over Gantt charts and establish identification using a variant of g-computation that seeks expert input only for components unidentifiable from data. To make egg-computation practical, we develop an LLM-assisted pipeline that reliably scales up expert reasoning. In simulations, egg-computation outperforms conventional causal inference methods when patients have diverse causal structures and intervention mechanisms. In a study of eleven candidate QI interventions at an urban safety-net hospital, the LLM pipeline generated graphs and time-saving estimates highly concordant with those of human experts. Beyond healthcare, egg-computation is a broadly applicable framework for estimating the average time saved for candidate interventions whose causal mechanisms can be represented using Gantt charts.

Frozen foundation-model (FM) embeddings are increasingly used as off-the-shelf brain-MRI representations, on the assumption that they capture anatomy. We audit what they actually encode and find that acquisition site is a large, intrinsic component of the representation. Across two independent cohorts (ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II), three frozen 3-D encoders (brain-pretrained, CT-pretrained, and randomly initialized), and every network depth, site is linearly decodable at roughly 0.9 balanced accuracy at deep layers, exceeding the decodability of every clinical or demographic variable (sex, age, autism diagnosis) at every layer. The effect is intrinsic rather than learned: a randomly initialized encoder is already a ~0.9 site classifier on both cohorts and across three architecture families (Swin, ViT, ResNet), and site is decodable at ~0.95 directly from the raw downsampled image with no encoder, so the fingerprint reflects low-level image statistics that any encoder preserves rather than a product of pretraining. Residualizing measured population covariates leaves site decodability essentially unchanged, indicating an acquisition- rather than population-driven effect. A nonlinear probe matches the linear one, so the fingerprint is fully linearly accessible. The site subspace is removable post hoc by iterative null-space projection or ComBat (site decodability 0.94 -> 0.07/0.00), and is a site-attribution concern for shared or federated embeddings; but for dense segmentation this removal is not free, because site and anatomy occupy an entangled linear subspace (a matched-rank random-direction projection is Dice-neutral, whereas removing the site subspace is destructive). We recommend site-audited use of frozen brain-MRI FMs and release an open audit toolkit.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly provide conversational health information that may influence treatment decisions, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether medication-safety boundaries persist across follow-ups after explicit self-treatment intent. We introduce TAF-MED, a physician-reviewed benchmark of 500 fixed three-turn scenarios, and evaluate eight LLMs across 4,000 conversations. A rubric-based automated judge labelled responses as SAFE, LEAKY, or UNSAFE, and two physicians independently annotated a model-balanced random subset of 400 conversations. We assessed unsafe guidance, collapse after a strictly SAFE initial response, and model-ranking stability. Overall, 71.6% of conversations contained an UNSAFE response, and 61.4% of those beginning with a strictly SAFE response later collapsed to UNSAFE; model-level collapse rates ranged from 24.4% to 96.2%. Four of 28 model pairs reversed order between initial unsafe and collapse rates. Automated labels achieved 94.3% agreement with the adjudicated physician reference ($κ= 0.895$). These findings show that first-turn safety is an incomplete proxy for conversational safety persistence and motivate evaluation across complete dialogue trajectories. We will release TAF-MED on Hugging Face to support reproducible research on multi-turn medical safety.

Large-scale targeting and recommendation systems are typically built around predictive scores fed into heuristic or local allocation. When the business goal is incremental impact, as in marketing campaigns, incentives, and notifications, this paradigm systematically misallocates resources toward users who would have acted anyway. We present a decision-centric framework that instead optimizes causal effects under global constraints, aligning three components under a single objective: a causal neural network with a Transformer backbone for individual treatment-effect estimation, a Bayesian neural-bandit layer for uncertainty-aware exploration, and a dual-based large-scale linear-programming layer for constrained allocation. The framework also supports sequential context and multi-outcome, attribute-conditioned scoring through a Transformer encoder and outcome embeddings. We evaluate it with offline simulations on a public bandit dataset, targeted architectural ablations, and an online A/B test on LinkedIn Feed marketing traffic. We also distill production lessons on causal training-data construction and cost and delivery control, which were critical to successful deployment. The end-to-end treatment policy delivered a statistically significant $+7.20\%$ lift in the primary long-term-value metric, demonstrating the feasibility of production-scale causal optimization under business constraints.

Predicting the answer to interventional ``what if'' questions --- the outcome of an action never taken --- requires a \emph{mechanistic}, causal model, not a curve fit; and learning such a model requires \emph{experiments}, because passive data leaves its mechanisms unidentified. Experiments are expensive, so the central problem is \emph{data efficiency}. We present the Model Discovery Agent (MDA), which couples a large language model (LLM), used as a \emph{proposer} of candidate structures, with standard Bayesian machinery --- sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) for parameter and structure posteriors, simulation-based inference (SBI) for intractable likelihoods, and value-of-information (VoI) for experiment design --- to discover latent mechanistic world models from few interventions. MDA operates in the M-open setting: when the truth lies outside the current hypothesis class, a predictive check flags the inadequacy and the proposer expands the hypothesis space with a new model whose parameters are then identified by designed experiments. We show that \emph{discovery and design reinforce}: the design step identifies the mechanism the discovery step proposes, and the identified mechanism improves predictions, enabling further discoveries from the remaining unexplained residuals. On three different benchmarks --- covering physics (\DPbench, \citep{wiemann2026discoverphysics}), chemistry (\CHEMbench, \citep{kabra2026autoscilab}) and biology (\HHbench, a new partially observed single-neuron electrophysiology benchmark we create) --- we show that MDA sets a new SOTA in terms of data-efficient model learning and reliable interventional prediction ability.

Cooperative capabilities in language models are dual-use. The same social reasoning that supports civic deliberation can also enable strategic omission, false consensus, and manipulative framing. We argue that Cooperative AI evaluations should separate what models can do under benign instructions from what they tend to do under realistic civic pressure. We introduce DiffCoop-Civic, a 10-scenario pilot evaluation suite spanning preference understanding, evidence and persuasion, commitment design, asymmetric information, and dissent preservation. Across seven models from four model families, subtle omission pressure produces a near-uniform shift: manipulative enablement rises by 1.17 points and dissent preservation falls by 1.67 points on a 5-point scale. Overt false-consensus pressure behaves differently: it triggers refusal or redirection in some aligned API models, but direct compliance in several open-weight models. A lightweight Pareto-Trace prompting intervention improves pressure robustness without simply relying on hard refusal. An anonymous reproducibility package is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/diffcoop-civil-771C.

Neural language models trained on large crowdsourced corpora frequently exploit spurious surface patterns tied to target labels without true linguistic or causal relevance, boosting benchmark performance while failing on adversarial or out-of-distribution inputs. Existing approaches either require manual specification of the feature vocabulary or automate discovery only partially, leaving the gap between dataset-level correlation and model-level exploitation unaddressed. We present U N M ASK, a fully automated pipeline that discovers, causally verifies, and mitigates spurious correlations in text classifiers without additional human annotation. Given unlabeled training examples, U N M ASK generates candidate surface patterns as executable boolean expressions, filters them through a statistical validation protocol with independent replication, and establishes causal model dependence via verified counterfactual interventions. Causally confirmed features then serve as annotation-free group definitions for Deep Feature Reweighting, eliminating the group labels that standard DFR requires. Applied to BERT and RoBERTa trained on MNLI, our pipeline independently rediscovers established lexical-overlap and negation biases, verifying 9 of 10 features on BERT and 6 on RoBERTa, and improving HANS accuracy by up to 12.58 pp. On CivilComments-WILDS, programmatic groups match the 70.1% worst- group accuracy of hand-labeled DFR (Kirichenko et al., 2023) without demographic annotation. We further demonstrate that the discovery and validation stages generalize to reward model preference data, surfacing interpretable spurious correlations in RewardBench2.

Treatment planning in precision oncology requires synthesizing heterogeneous patient information with rapidly evolving clinical guidelines to ensure guideline-concordant care. While large language models (LLMs) show promise in many diagnostic tasks, their adoption for high-stakes treatment planning is hindered by complex reasoning, adherence to timely clinical guidelines, and safety concerns. In this study, we present GatorOnco, an agentic LLM for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment planning. GatorOnco is developed using a total of 282 billion tokens of biomedical text, including healthcare system-scale clinical text comprising 166 billion tokens from UF Health. We implemented a domain-adaptation method that integrates pre-training, model merging, a two-stage post-training approach, and agent-based reinforcement learning. An agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach dynamically integrates time-sensitive clinical guidelines into the reasoning process. In a blind, randomized clinical evaluation conducted by five UF Health oncologists, GatorOnco significantly outperformed open-source LLMs (P < 0.01) and achieved expert-level performance comparable to UF Health oncologists. Compared with expert oncologists, GatorOnco received significantly higher ratings for readability (4.46 vs. 4.19, P < 0.01) and completeness (3.91 vs. 3.52, P < 0.01), while showing statistically comparable performance in correctness (4.09 vs. 4.11, P = 0.921), currency (4.04 vs. 3.98, P = 0.478), and safety (4.22 vs. 4.22, P = 0.999). These findings demonstrate that integrating agentic reasoning with large-scale domain adaptation can help bridge the gap for generative AI in high-stakes cancer treatment planning.

In medical applications, raw data is frequently associated with significant privacy concerns, lending particular importance to the encoding of summary statistics from the literature. On the other hand, deep learning has become an invaluable tool for assessing symptoms based on visual or auditory sensor data. DeepProbLog allows for an extensible neuro-symbolic approach that accommodates connectionist components to analyse patient images within a transparent and rigorous probabilistic framework, namely probabilistic logic programming under the distribution semantics. Framed as a case study in stroke detection from multimodal data, this contribution explores the pathway from summary statistics available in the literature to a DeepProbLog-based diagnostic system. It suggests a workflow using established maximum entropy techniques to complete available probabilistic information and the probabilistic logic programming system ProbLog 2 to move from the entropy-maximising causal model to a discriminative neuro-symbolic model expressible within DeepProbLog. The relative performance of models derived from less complete data is analysed alongside the potential of the probabilistic inductive logic programming system ProbFOIL 2 for compressing large discriminative models, and the perspectives and implications of using DeepProbLog for diagnostic reasoning are discussed.