Causal Attribution

Large language models can extract local causal claims from text, but those claims become more useful when organized as persistent, navigable world models rather than as flat summaries. We introduce PROMETHEUS, a framework that turns retrieved literature, filings, reviews, reports, agent traces, source data, code, simulations, and scientific models into causal atlases: sheaf-like families of local causal predictive-state models over an explicit cover of a research substrate. Each local region contains causal episodes, structured claim tables, predictive tests, support statistics, and provenance; restriction maps compare overlapping regions; gluing diagnostics expose agreement, drift, contradiction, and underdetermination. The resulting Topos World Model is not a single universal graph. It is a research instrument for navigating what a corpus says, where it says it, how strongly it is supported, and where local claims fail to assemble into a coherent global view. Three literature-atlas case studies -- ocean-temperature impacts on marine populations, GLP-1 weight-loss evidence, and resveratrol/red-wine health-benefit claims -- illustrate deep causal research from text with explicit locality, evidence, persistent state, and gluing tension. Four grounded-counterfactual case studies -- a Nature Climate Change microplastics forcing paper, an Indus Valley hydrology paper with VIC-derived figure data and model code, the canonical Sachs protein-signaling study with single-cell perturbation data, and a Nature singing-mouse study with MAPseq projection matrices -- show a stronger mode: when a paper ships source data, simulation outputs, or code, PROMETHEUS can evaluate a counterfactual against that scientific substrate and then rebuild the sheaf world model around the

Recent work has increasingly explored neuron-level interpretation in vision-language models (VLMs) to identify neurons critical to final predictions. However, existing neuron analyses generally focus on single tasks, limiting the comparability of neuron importance across tasks. Moreover, ranking strategies tend to score neurons in isolation, overlooking how task-dependent information pathways shape the write-in effects of feed-forward network (FFN) neurons. This oversight can exacerbate neuron polysemanticity in multi-task settings, introducing noise into the identification and intervention of task-critical neurons. In this study, we propose HONES (Head-Oriented Neuron Explanation & Steering), a gradient-free framework for task-aware neuron attribution and steering in multi-task VLMs. HONES ranks FFN neurons by their causal write-in contributions conditioned on task-relevant attention heads, and further modulates salient neurons via lightweight scaling. Experiments on four diverse multimodal tasks and two popular VLMs show that HONES outperforms existing methods in identifying task-critical neurons and improves model performance after steering. Our source code is released at: https://github.com/petergit1/HONES.

We treat the internals of generative models as mechanistic objects rather than black boxes. We introduce \textbf{Attribution Graphs} (AGs), which extend GradCAM++ to circuit-level representations, and \textbf{Causal Probing}, a do-calculus intervention method for identifying causal latent structures, enabling detection and correction of spurious correlations, demographic biases, and misaligned decision circuits during training. We further propose the \textbf{Cognitive Alignment Score (CAS)}, quantifying agreement between model-internal representations and human concepts, a \textbf{saliency-first privacy mechanism} sharing only thresholded attribution nodes, a bias-aware regularizer aligning subgroup statistics, and a Reveal-to-Revise loop integrating attribution signals into parameter updates without separate fine-tuning. Evaluated on CelebA, FairFace, Jigsaw, and HateXplain, our method achieves \textbf{94.1%} accuracy, \textbf{92.3%} macro F1, \textbf{79.4%} IoU-XAI, and \textbf{12.7} FID at 72--76% adversarial robustness, while reducing subgroup disparity $Δ_{\mathrm{bias}}$ by \textbf{41%}, demonstrating that mechanistic interpretability, fairness, and generative performance can be jointly optimized.

Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models (LLMs) and to evaluate the trustworthiness of model outputs, making them important for effective collaboration between LLMs and humans. We demonstrate that preference optimization - a key step in the alignment phase - can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations. This occurs because the reward model (RM), which guides alignment, is tasked with optimizing both the expected quality of the response and the appropriateness of the explanations (e.g., minimizing bias or adhering to safety standards), creating potential conflicts. The RM lacks a mechanism to assess the consistency between the model's internal decision process and the generated explanation. Consequently, the LLM may engage in "reward hacking" by producing a final response that scores highly while giving an explanation tailored to maximize reward rather than accurately reflecting its reasoning. To address this issue, we propose enriching the RM's input with a causal attribution of the prediction, allowing the RM to detect discrepancies between the generated self-explanation and the model's decision process. In controlled settings, we show that this approach reduces the tendency of the LLM to generate misleading explanations.

Statistical fairness metrics in AI-driven credit decisions conflate two causally distinct mechanisms: discrimination operating directly from a protected attribute to a credit outcome, and structural inequality propagating through legitimate financial features. We formalise this distinction using Pearl's framework of natural direct and indirect effects applied to the credit decision setting. Our primary theoretical contribution is an identification strategy for natural direct and indirect effects under treatment-induced confounding -- the prevalent setting in which protected attributes causally affect both financial mediators and the final decision, violating standard sequential ignorability. We show that interventional direct and indirect effects (IDE/IIE) are identified under the weaker Modified Sequential Ignorability assumption, and prove that IDE/IIE provide conservative bounds on the unidentified natural effects under monotone indirect treatment response. We propose a doubly-robust augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) estimator for IDE/IIE with semiparametric efficiency properties, implemented via cross-fitting. An E-value sensitivity analysis addresses residual confounding on the direct pathway. Empirical evaluation on 89,465 real HMDA conventional purchase mortgage applications from New York State (2022) demonstrates that approximately 77% of the observed 7.9 percentage-point racial denial disparity operates through financial mediators shaped by structural inequality, while the remaining 23% constitutes a conservative lower bound on direct discrimination. The open-source CausalFair Python package implements the full pipeline for deployment at resource-constrained financial institutions.