Causal Interpretability

End-to-end (E2E) autonomous-driving planners trained by imitation are prone to statistical shortcuts: they associate scene elements that merely co-occur with expert actions (a roadside object, a building facade) with driving decisions, rather than the variables that causally determine them. Such causal confusion silently compromises reliability in long-tail scenarios, and it is difficult to detect, because prevailing open-loop metrics (L2 displacement and collision rate) are dominated by ego status and do not indicate whether a planner depends on spurious cues. Existing remedies based on causal-intervention training require retraining large models and cannot audit a planner that is already deployed. We present CADET, a training-free framework that audits, benchmarks, and repairs spurious reliance in pretrained E2E planners without any parameter update.

Block Attention Residuals (Block AttnRes) by replace fixed additive residuals with a learned softmax over earlier depth-source representations, surfacing cross-layer routing as an inspectable tensor in the forward pass. This is a tempting interpretability target: information flow normally inferred indirectly is now directly observable. We ask whether such exposure suffices for mechanistic interpretation. We probe two same-scale ($0.6$B) Block AttnRes checkpoints under identical routing-ablation interventions: a vanilla Qwen3 inference-wrapped through a deterministic recency-bias schedule that the codebase admits as a routing-equivalent loading path, and a Block AttnRes Qwen3 trained from scratch with routing as part of optimisation. The wrapped baseline's routing weights are content-independent and reproduce the schedule's analytic prediction. The trained AttnRes checkpoint instead exhibits three localised routing motifs: an embedding-source pathway through early-layer MLP, a current-state pathway through early-layer attention and MLP, and an older-history pathway through late-layer attention. Beyond this stratification, we find a sharp dissociation between average routing mass and causal importance: in both sublayers, the largest mass slice is not the largest causal contribution, and one source family carries appreciable mass with no detectable causal role under intervention. Architectural exposure of routing is therefore necessary but not sufficient for mechanistic interpretation: structured depth routing emerges only when routing has been part of training, and even then, descriptive routing summaries should be treated as candidate hypotheses to be tested by causal interventions, not as evidence of mechanism in their own right.

Latent reasoning models (LRMs) replace explicit chain-of-thought with continuous thoughts. Recent work treats observable latent-state patterns, such as BFS-like frontiers and decodable arithmetic computation, as evidence for internal reasoning mechanisms. Evaluating two LRMs (Coconut and CODI) against controls lacking the proposed recurrence or curriculum, we find these patterns also appear in the controls and do not always causally affect behavior. Causal interventions reveal that latent-thought utilization is not binary but graded, scaling with a thought's causal effect on model behavior. Geometric analyses reveal this effect concentrates in low-rank directions whose step-to-step geometry grows more structured as their behavioral influence increases. Latent thoughts should therefore be treated as hidden computation, not hidden explanation: decodability, attention, or static structure alone cannot establish mechanism. LRM interpretability thus requires matched controls and causal tests.

Interpretability methods routinely use population-level summary statistics over observed model behaviour to license claims about the effects of targeted interventions on specific computations; in Pearl's terms, they treat rung-1 associational evidence as if it supported rung-2 interventional conclusions, a move whose validity is rarely tested. We examine one concrete instance: the use of routing statistics in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) pruning, where utilization rates, activation norms, and routing weight distributions are treated as predictors of which experts can be removed without functional cost. A token-level interventional audit across three high-redundancy MoE architectures (OLMoE-1B-7B-0924, Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B, DeepSeek-V2-Lite) finds no observational metric predicts causal expert importance in any model: across all 60 metric-layer combinations effect sizes stay below Cohen's $d = 0.23$, and no metric is reliably positive under our corrected, dual-test criterion. A per-token routing weight control, run with identical $n$, rules out insufficient power, recovering a signal whose CI excludes zero at OLMoE's final MoE layer ($d = +0.231$, 95% CI $[+0.09, +0.37]$, $p = 0.0013$). Existing pruning methods succeed in this regime not by identifying dispensable experts but because early-layer redundancy renders most selection criteria interchangeable. Our results provide an explicit counterexample to the common inferential step from population-level observational summaries to token-level interventional claims about expert importance, and illustrate how interventional audits can calibrate the evidential standards for interpretability claims.

Circuit discovery methods identify subgraphs that explain specific model behaviors, and structural differences between discovered circuits are commonly interpreted as evidence of distinct mechanisms. We test this assumption by varying input statistics while holding the task fixed, and show that the resulting structural differences exhibit apparent specialization but do not correspond to functional differences, a pattern we term phantom specialization. Using Literal Sequence Copying across four token-frequency bands plus a control condition in five Pythia models (70M-1.4B), we extract 75 circuits and find that structurally distinct circuits implement the same computation: band-specific edges transfer broadly across bands, a core shared across most bands recovers at least 99% of circuit performance, and causal interchange interventions confirm that internal representations are interchangeable across frequency bands. Repeated extractions within the same frequency band further suggest that discovery algorithms sample from an equivalence class of valid subgraphs rather than recovering a unique mechanism. Standard evaluation practice obscures this pattern: source-level evaluation inflates apparent faithfulness, while edge-level evaluation reveals the many-to-one mapping from structure to function. Our results show that structural differences between circuits are not sufficient evidence for distinct mechanisms, and that exposing this requires edge-level evaluation and cross-condition transfer tests.

Causal graphs provide a high-level language for making mechanisms transparent. Recent work uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to recover causal graphs of external-world processes. Instead, in this paper, we use causal graphs to model LLM inference itself, providing stakeholders with a transparent view of how the model perceives and organizes high-level concepts to produce a prediction. We propose a four-phase method for constructing such graphs. Given a target LLM and a set of textual examples, our method discovers class-discriminative, human-interpretable concepts and maps each input to LLM-perceived concept states. We then introduce an MCMC-inspired counterfactual augmentation procedure that expands the sparse observational data through chains of counterfactuals. This enables stable causal discovery with $σ$-CG, yielding informative, interpretable graphs. We apply our method to three LLMs across disease diagnosis, sentiment analysis, and LLM-as-a-judge classification tasks. We evaluate the learned graphs for predictive fidelity and structural stability, and the MCMC-inspired augmentation for convergence and downstream utility. Our results show that the discovered causal graphs capture meaningful dependencies consistent with LLMs' reasoning. Together, this paper provides a foundation for concept-level explainability of LLMs.

Neural network (NN)-based nonlinear causal discovery methods recover DAG structure but leave each causal mechanism as a black box. Waxman et al. argued that extracting causal mechanisms from NN weights is ill-posed. We propose EML-CD, a framework that integrates the EML operator (capable of composing elementary functions from a single binary operator) into causal structure learning, with interpretable mechanism recovery as the primary objective. EML-CD represents each edge mechanism as a gated EML binary tree and automatically discovers closed-form causal equations. Analytical Jacobians can be directly computed from the output equations, enabling quantitative understanding of causal effects. On real data (Sachs protein signaling, d=11), EML-CD achieves SHD=11.2 +/- 0.4 (5-seed mean; baselines are single deterministic runs), on par with PC/GES within seed variance and below CAM, while attaching closed-form equations to each detected edge (precision 0.756, recall 0.365). In a controlled bivariate test with known mechanisms, EML-CD recovers 10 of 11 elementary function families faithfully (held-out shape correlation >= 0.96; only high-frequency sine is partial). On a symbolic synthetic benchmark, EML-CD attains a substantially lower and more stable held-out mechanism f-MSE than a fixed SINDy dictionary (mean 3.67 vs. 7644, the latter inflated by catastrophic extrapolation on one seed), although its structure recovery (SHD 14.0) only matches the dictionary and stays below specialized optimizers; on the Causal Chambers light-tunnel subset, a depth-2 model improves F1 over linear OLS-BIC (0.444 vs. 0.273).

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

A linear probe can decode a representation almost perfectly and yet be completely irrelevant to how the model uses it. On calendar-date duration reasoning in language models, a $\sin$/$\cos$ probe recovers day-of-year from a layer's activations, yet ablating its direction has no effect on the model's answers -- while ablating a four-dimensional subspace found by Distributed Alignment Search (DAS) at the same layer collapses performance entirely. We measure the angle between these two subspaces -- the \emph{readout-mediator angle} -- and find it indistinguishable from the angle between two random subspaces (the Haar-uniform null), meaning the probe has learned a direction orthogonal to the model's actual computation. Reverse-engineering the circuit reveals why: attention heads route month-grained context through learned QK offsets at ${\pm}30$ and ${\pm}61$ days, and MLPs then convert \emph{when} (absolute date) into \emph{how long} (duration) -- all downstream of the causal subspace the probe never touches. Sparse-autoencoder decomposition confirms the split: probe-aligned and DAS-aligned features encode semantically disjoint concepts with negligible causal overlap. The dissociation replicates across four scales ($1.5$-$9\,$B) and two model families, with preliminary evidence on two further domains (spatial displacement, symbolic arithmetic), suggesting that readout-mediator orthogonality is a general failure mode of probe-based interpretability. This directly undermines proposals to deploy probes as runtime safety monitors: the probe can report high confidence on a direction the model has silently abandoned.

Mechanistic interpretability seeks to explain a model's behaviour by finding its circuit: the sparse subgraph of the model's computation that is causally responsible for it. Automated methods have made this search systematic, but each one starts afresh for every behaviour, and the effort spent finding one circuit does nothing for the next. Circuit discovery has thus been automated, but not amortised. We ask whether circuit discovery can itself be learned. We frame it as a sequential decision problem over the computation graph of GPT-2 small, in which a policy removes edges until it reaches a compact subgraph that preserves the behaviour, guided by a faithfulness reward defined through causal intervention. A single policy trained across twelve behaviours recovers a faithful circuit for each, and once frozen it transfers to behaviours it never saw during training, recovering their known circuits without further search. A short warm-start improves these transferred circuits, returning far smaller ones than training from scratch. While the learned policy does not match a per-behaviour search on circuit size or cost, it shows that circuit discovery is a learnable, transferable procedure rather than a search repeated for every behaviour.

We find a mismatch between what large language models encode about a causal question and what they answer. On anti-commonsense CLadder items, a fixed linear probe recovers the evidence-supported answer from the model's hidden state (accuracy approximately 0.97), while the spoken Yes/No reverts to the commonsense one (accuracy approximately 0.5). We call this approximately +0.5 gap Causal Tongue-Tie: a wrong Yes/No decomposes into two separable failure modes: no internal signal versus a signal the verbal interface cannot say. The implication cuts both ways for output-only causal benchmarks: a benchmark "correct" need not mean the model has understood, and a benchmark "wrong" need not mean it cannot. Sweeping claims about whether LLMs can do causal reasoning, drawn from a single accuracy number, deserve a second look.

Structured prompts require integrating components according to task-relevant relations. How a network implements this integration is often hard to judge in language or vision, where those relations are rarely specified precisely enough to define a candidate internal algorithm. Arithmetic offers a cleaner setting. We study a Transformer trained on base-digit extraction: given $N$, $B$, and $D$, it must report the coefficient of $B^D$ in the base-$B$ expansion of $N$. The closed-form solution, $\lfloor N/B^D \rfloor \bmod B$, provides explicit candidate algorithmic intermediates. Across three seeds, the model reaches 99.83% exact-answer accuracy on held-out number-base intersections, establishing reliable task competence. Linear probes decode the intermediates, making staged arithmetic computation plausible. Causal tests then separate representation from use: within the localized route from the stream with $D$ as input to the output positions, behavior depends on early $D$-selective communication, independent of $N$ and $B$. Relatedly, a sparse circuit search finds mostly separate $N$, $B$, and $D$ routes that combine late rather than the staged route suggested by the probes. Thus, the model represents the intermediates that make the closed-form solution plausible, but the identified localized causal route does not transmit them to the output stream. This case shows that probe-based conclusions can diverge sharply from causal observations, even when explicit algorithmic hypotheses are available.

We propose a five-stage methodology for causal feature analysis in transformer language models (probe design, feature extraction, causal validation, robustness testing, and deployment integration) and demonstrate it end-to-end on GPT-2 small performing the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task. Activation patching recovers the canonical IOI circuit (layer-9 head 9 alone gives recovery +1.02). A sparse autoencoder recovers per-name selective features with effect sizes of 30 to 50 activation units. Causal validation finds these features specifically but only partially causal: ablating fifteen of them leaves the model accurate on 98% of prompts. Two NLA-inspired evaluations strengthen this picture: the fifteen selective features explain only 31% of activation variance versus the SAE's 99.7%, and selectivity ratio anticorrelates with causal force (r = -0.56). Robustness testing under three distribution shifts finds that the circuit transfers cleanly but feature ablation effects degrade substantially, exposing a gap between detection robustness and causal robustness. A cost-based deployment evaluation (assumed $50/FN,$0.42/FP, 2% error rate) finds an optimal monitor configuration yielding $8.96 per 1000 queries against a$1000 baseline, a 99.1% saving. Optimal composition strategy varies with cost ratio and base rate. The conjunction of stages produces findings no single stage would.

Mechanistic interpretability aims to explain a model's behavior by identifying causally responsible internal structures. Dictionary-based explainers such as sparse autoencoders and transcoders are a primary tool, but their faithfulness under out-of-distribution (OOD) shift has received little systematic attention. We show that distribution shift rotates the subspace that the model actively uses, misaligning the explainer's dictionary trained on in-distribution (ID) activations. We formalize this misalignment as the faithfulness gap, a geometric distance between the ID dictionary and the OOD-active subspace, and show that it controls OOD faithfulness degradation. To reduce this gap, we propose the Geometry-Adaptive Explainer (GAE), which realigns the explainer's dictionary with the OOD-active subspace while preserving the original feature structure. This requires only unlabeled OOD activations and no gradient updates. We prove that GAE improves over the unadapted ID explainer, with excess loss bounded quadratically by the second-moment shift. Empirically, GAE even matches or surpasses all training-based baselines in causal faithfulness across multiple models and OOD settings.

Mechanistic interpretability produces circuit-level causal analyses of neural network behaviour, but discovered circuits often remain isolated experimental artefacts: there is no shared formal representation for what circuits compute, how they relate, or when two findings provide evidence for the same mechanism. This work provides a formal infrastructure for cumulative mechanistic science by treating circuit interpretation as inductive theory construction. Each circuit is characterised at two levels: a Causal Functional Signature (CFS), which grounds component behaviour in causal attribution evidence and token role profiles, and an architectural signature $τ_{\mathrm{arch}}$, learned by inductive logic programming (ILP) from scale-invariant structural predicates. Together, these constitute a formal coherence layer that makes mechanistic claims explicit, comparable via $θ$-subsumption, and portable across model scales. CFS reveals qualitatively distinct computational strategies across task types, including attention-mediated copying versus MLP-mediated binding. ILP signatures achieve substantially better structural separation than graph kernel and feature-vector baselines, and support principled transfer across model scales and architecture families.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) show promise in medical applications, but their inability to faithfully ground responses in visual evidence raises serious concerns about clinical trustworthiness. While visual attribution methods are widely used to explain LVLM predictions, whether these explanations actually reflect the visual evidence underlying the model's decision is largely unverified, since ground-truth annotations for internal model reasoning are typically unavailable. We address this question for chest X-ray (CXR) reasoning by developing a causal evaluation framework that retains only CXR-VQA samples for which the expert-annotated region is verified, via counterfactual editing, to be causally responsible for the model's prediction. Using this framework across 11 attribution methods, six open-source LVLMs, and two output modes (direct answer and step-by-step reasoning), we find that existing attribution methods often fail to identify the evidence used by LVLMs. To address this failure, we propose MedFocus, a concept-based attribution method that localizes clinically meaningful anatomical regions via unbalanced optimal transport and measures their causal effect on model outputs through targeted interventions. MedFocus produces spatial, concept-level, and token-level attributions and substantially outperforms prior methods, taking a step toward more trustworthy attribution for medical LVLMs. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/gzxiong/medfocus/.

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are increasingly important for the validation and responsible use of modern deep learning models, but are difficult to evaluate due to the lack of good ground-truth to compare against. We propose a framework that serves as a quantifiable metric for the quality of XAI methods, based on continuous input perturbation. Our metric formally considers the sufficiency and necessity of the attributed information to the model's decision-making, and we illustrate a range of cases where it aligns better with human intuitions of explanation quality than do existing metrics. To exploit the properties of this metric, we also propose a novel XAI method, considering the case where we fine-tune a model using a differentiable approximation of the metric as a supervision signal. The result is an adapter module that can be trained on top of any black-box model to output causal explanations of the model's decision process, without degrading model performance. We show that the explanations generated by this method outperform those of competing XAI techniques according to a number of quantifiable metrics.

Interpreting the decisions of deep image classifiers remains challenging, particularly in black-box settings where model internals are inaccessible. We introduce OCCAM, a framework for open-set causal concept explanation and ontology induction in vision models. OCCAM discovers visual concepts in an open-set manner, localizes them via text-guided segmentation, and performs object-level interventions by removing concepts to measure changes in class confidence, estimating each concept's causal contribution. Beyond local explanations, OCCAM aggregates interventional evidence across a dataset to induce a structured concept ontology that captures how classifiers globally organize visual concepts. Reasoning over this ontology reveals consistent dependencies between concepts, exposes latent causal relations, and uncovers systematic model biases. Experiments on Broden and ImageNet-S across multiple classifiers show that OCCAM improves explanation quality in open-set black-box settings while providing richer global insight than per-image attribution methods.

Neural networks have proved an effective means of learning control policies for autonomous systems, but these learned policies are difficult to understand due to the black-box nature of neural networks. This lack of interpretability makes safety assurance for such autonomous systems challenging. The fields of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) and eXplainable Reinforcement Learning (XRL) aim to interpret the decision making processes of neural networks and autonomous agents, respectively. In particular, work on causal explanations aims to provide "why" and "why not" explanations for why a model made a given decision. However, most of the work on explainability to date utilises a distilled version of the original model. While this distilled policy is interpretable, it necessarily degrades in performance significantly when compared to the original model, and is not guaranteed to be an accurate reflection of the decision making processes in the original model and as such cannot be used to guarantee its safety. Recent work on understanding the geometry of ReLU neural networks shows that a ReLU network corresponds to a piecewise linear function divided into regions defined by an n-dimensional convex polytope. Through this lens, a neural network can be understood as dividing the input space into distinct regions which apply a single linear function for each output neuron. We show that this geometric representation can be used to generate causal explanations for the network's behaviour similar to previous work, but which extracts rules directly from the geometry of Neural Networks with the ReLU activation function, and is therefore an accurate reflection of the network's behaviour.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) decompose transformer residual streams into interpretable feature dictionaries, yet the relationship between SAE width and causal influence on model output has not been systematically characterised. We introduce causal dimensionality kappa(L, M, T), defined as the effective rank of the expected Jacobian outer product at layer L, and show it can be estimated via the SAE width sweep paired with attribution patching. Across seven SAE widths from 16,384 to 1,048,576 features on Gemma-2-2B layer 12, representational capacity grows 15.6x while causal capacity grows only 4.35x: a robust separation we term the representational-causal wedge. A saturating fit yields kappa-hat approximately 1,990 with kappa-hat / d_model = 0.86 and participation-ratio lower bound kappa_PR approximately 280. Crucially, kappa is invariant to model scaling: Gemma-2-9B and Gemma-2-2B yield identical N_causal = 328 at the same SAE width despite a 3.46x parameter increase (the count is forced to 2% of SAE width by calibration; the substantive empirical claim is shape invariance of the AtP score distribution under matched seq=512 conditions). Across eight network depths kappa is constant while the absolute attribution threshold drops 20x from layer 1 to layer 23. Five controls (architecture invariance, threshold robustness, geometric privilege, synthetic ground-truth recovery, and a four-cell encoder/decoder ablation) pin down what kappa measures and what it does not. Our findings establish kappa as a measurable, model-intrinsic property of transformer layers: sub-linearly recoverable by SAE width, invariant to model scaling, and structured across network depth.

Distributional treatment effects can be invisible to means: a treatment may preserve average outcomes while changing tails, modes, dispersion, or rare-event probabilities. Kernel tests can detect discrepancies between interventional outcome laws, but global tests do not reveal where the laws differ. We propose DR-ME, to our knowledge the first semiparametrically efficient finite-location test for interpretable distributional treatment effects. DR-ME evaluates an interventional kernel witness at learned outcome locations, returning causal-discrepancy coordinates rather than only a global rejection. From observational data, we derive orthogonal doubly robust kernel features whose centered oracle form is the canonical gradient of this finite witness. For fixed locations, we characterize the local testing limit: DR-ME is chi-square calibrated under the null, has noncentral chi-square local power, and uses the covariance whitening that optimizes local signal-to-noise for discrepancies visible through the selected coordinates. This efficient local-power geometry yields a principled location-learning criterion, with sample splitting preserving post-selection validity. Experiments show near-nominal type-I error, competitive power against global doubly robust kernel tests, and interpretable learned locations that localize distributional effects in a semi-synthetic medical-imaging study.

Mechanistic interpretability papers increasingly use causal vocabulary: circuits, mediators, causal abstraction, monosemanticity. Such claims require explicit identification assumptions. A purposive audit of 10 papers across four methodological strands finds no dedicated identification-assumptions section and a recurring pattern: validation metrics such as faithfulness, completeness, monosemanticity, alignment, or ablation effects are reported as causal support without stating the assumptions that make them identifying. A two-human-coder audit on $n=30$ reproduces the direction of the main finding: dedicated identification sections are absent, and validation-metric substitution is common, though exact Dim B/D counts are coding-rule sensitive. The paper proposes a disclosure norm: state whether the claim is causal, name the identification strategy, enumerate assumptions, stress at least one, and explain how conclusions shift if assumptions fail. Validation is not identification.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) in medical imaging aim to improve model interpretability by predicting intermediate clinical concepts before final diagnoses. However, most existing CBMs treat concepts as discriminative predictors of pathology labels, without explicitly modelling the underlying clinical generative process where diseases produce observable radiographic findings. We propose XpertCausal, a radiologist-guided causal CBM for chest X-ray interpretation which models pathology-to-concept relationships using a probabilistic noisy-OR framework. This generative model is then inverted via Bayesian inference to estimate pathology probabilities from predicted concepts. Radiologist-curated concept-pathology associations are used to constrain model structure to radiologist-defined clinically plausible reasoning pathways. We evaluate XpertCausal on MIMIC-CXR across pathology classification performance, calibration, explanation quality, and alignment with radiologist-defined reasoning pathways. Compared with both a non-causal CBM baseline and a causal ablation with unconstrained learned associations, XpertCausal achieves improved AUROC, calibration, and clinically relevant explanation quality, while learning concept-pathology relationships that more closely align with expert knowledge. These results demonstrate that incorporating clinically motivated causal structure and expert domain knowledge into CBMs can lead to more accurate, interpretable, and clinically aligned models for CXR interpretation.

Causal abstraction offers a principled framework for mechanistic interpretability, aligning a high-level causal model with low-level neural computation through interchange intervention analysis. Finding such an alignment, however, often requires fitting and evaluating separate learned mappings across many candidate neural locations. We introduce PLOT, a gradient-free approach for joint correspondence discovery via a global matching of intervention effects. PLOT represents abstract and neural interventions by geometric signatures of their effects on the shared task output and fits an optimal transport coupling between the two collections. The coupling can be calibrated directly into an executable intervention handle or used progressively to select coarse parent sites for finer localization, reducing the cost of searching broad collections of neural sites. Experiments on hierarchical equality, binary addition, and multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) demonstrate fast and accurate direct handles without learning intervention rotations and show that progressive localization can improve accuracy under intervention-size constraints while reducing computational cost. PLOT can also guide gradient-based subspace learning, with PLOT-guided distributed alignment search (DAS) attaining accuracy comparable to full DAS at approximately $3.6\times$ and $20\times$ lower serial runtime on binary addition and MCQA, respectively. PLOT thus separates the search for candidate correspondences from optional subspace learning and provides a common framework for constructing and testing neural intervention handles for a given causal model.

Concept-based explanations offer a promising approach for explaining the predictions of deep neural networks in terms of high-level, human-understandable concepts. However, existing methods either do not establish a causal connection between the concepts and model predictions or are limited in expressivity and only able to infer causal explanations involving single concepts. At the same time, the parallel line of work on formal abductive and contrastive explanations computes the minimal set of input features causally relevant for model outcomes but only considers low-level features such as pixels. Merging these two threads, in this work, we propose the notion of concept-based abductive and contrastive explanations that capture the minimal sets of high-level concepts causally relevant for model outcomes. We then present a family of algorithms that enumerate all minimal explanations while using concept erasure procedures to establish causal relationships. By appropriately aggregating such explanations, we are not only able to understand model predictions on individual images but also on collections of images where the model exhibits a user-specified, common behavior. We evaluate our approach on multiple models, datasets, and behaviors, and demonstrate its effectiveness in computing helpful, user-friendly explanations.

A pervasive intuition holds that vision-language models (VLMs) are most trustworthy when their attention maps look sharp: concentrated attention on the queried region should imply a confident, calibrated answer. We test this Attention-Confidence Assumption directly. We instrument three open-weight VLM families (LLaVA-1.5, PaliGemma, Qwen2-VL; 3-7B parameters) with a unified mechanistic pipeline -- the VLM Reliability Probe (VRP) -- that compares attention structure, generation dynamics, and hidden-state geometry against a single correctness label. Three results emerge. (i) Attention structure is a near-zero predictor of correctness (R_pb(C_k,y)=0.001, 95% CI [-0.034,0.036]; R_pb(H_s,y)=-0.012, [-0.047,0.024] on a pooled n=3,090 split), even though attention remains causally necessary for feature extraction (top-30% patch masking drops accuracy by 8.2-11.3 pp, p<0.001). (ii) Reliability becomes legible later in the computation: a single hidden-state linear probe reaches AUROC>0.95 on POPE for two of three families, and self-consistency at K=10 is the strongest behavioral predictor we measure at 10x inference cost (R_pb=0.43). (iii) Causal neuron-level ablations expose a sharp architectural split with direct monitor-design implications: late-fusion LLaVA concentrates reliability in a fragile late bottleneck (-8.3 pp object-identification accuracy after top-5 probe-neuron ablation), whereas early-fusion PaliGemma and Qwen2-VL distribute it widely and absorb destruction of ~50% of their peak-layer hidden dimension with <=1 pp degradation. The takeaway is narrow but consequential: in 3-7B VLMs, reliability is read more reliably off hidden-state geometry, layer-wise margin formation, and sparse late-layer circuits than off attention-map sharpness.

We present a method for diagnosing interpretation in neural networks by identifying an input subspace where a proposed interpretation is highly faithful. Our method is particularly useful for causal-abstraction-style interpretability, where a high-level causal hypothesis is evaluated by interchange interventions. Rather than treating interchange intervention accuracy as a single global summary, we refine this framework by partitioning the input space into well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions according to pairwise interchange-intervention behavior. This turns causal abstraction from a purely global evaluation into a more diagnostic tool: it not only measures whether an interpretation works, but also reveals where it works, where it fails, and what distinguishes the two cases. This diagnostic view also provides practical heuristics for improving interpretations. By analyzing the structure of the well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions, we can identify missing distinctions in a high-level hypothesis, discover previously unmodeled intermediate variables, and combine complementary partial interpretations into a stronger one. We instantiate this idea as a simple four-step recipe and show that it yields informative error analyses across multiple causal abstraction settings. In a toy logic task, recursively applying the recipe recovers a high-level hypothesis from scratch. More broadly, our results suggest that partitioning the input space is a useful step toward more precise, constructive, and scalable mechanistic interpretability.

Deep learning models for drug--target interaction (DTI) prediction often achieve strong benchmark performance without necessarily relying on mechanistically meaningful molecular features, a limitation that standard accuracy-based evaluation cannot detect. We introduce ISAAC (Intervention-based Structural Auditing Approach for Causal Reasoning), a post-hoc framework that evaluates prior-relative structural sensitivity by probing frozen models through matched mechanistic and spurious input-level interventions, independently of predictive accuracy. Applied to three sequence-based DTI architectures on the Davis benchmark, ISAAC reveals approximately 25% relative differences in reasoning scores across models with comparable AUROC (within around 3%), stable across training and intervention seeds and two distinct perturbation operators. These discrepancies, undetectable under conventional accuracy metrics, motivate the use of post-hoc structural auditing as a complement to standard performance evaluation in scientific machine learning for molecular modeling.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies often fail under distribution shift, suggesting that decisions may depend on spurious visual correlations rather than task-relevant causes. We formulate visual-action attribution as an interventional estimation problem. Accordingly, we introduce the Interventional Significance Score (ISS), an interventional masking procedure for estimating the causal influence of visual regions on action predictions, and the Nuisance Mass Ratio (NMR), a scalar measure of attribution to task-irrelevant features. We analyze the statistical properties of ISS and show that it admits unbiased estimation, and we characterize conditions under which action prediction error provides a valid proxy for causal influence. Experiments across diverse manipulation tasks indicate that NMR predicts generalization behavior and that ISS yields more faithful explanations than existing interpretability methods. These results suggest that interventional attribution provides a simple diagnostic approach for identifying causal misalignment in embodied policies.

Can Neural Assemblies -- groups of neurons that fire together and strengthen through co-activation -- learn the direction of causal influence between variables? While established as a computationally general substrate for classification, parsing, and planning, neural assemblies have not yet been shown to internalize causal directionality. We demonstrate that the inherent operations of neural assemblies -- projection, local plasticity control, and sparse winner selection -- are sufficient for directional learning. We introduce DIRECT (DIRectional Edge Coupling/Training), a mechanism that co-activates source and target assemblies under an adaptive gain schedule to internalize directed relations. Unlike backpropagation-based methods, DIRECT relies solely on local plasticity, making the resulting causal claims auditable at the mechanism level. Our findings are verified through a dual-readout validation strategy: (i) synaptic-strength asymmetry, measuring the emergent weight gap between forward and reverse links, and (ii) functional propagation overlap, quantifying the reliability of directional signal flow. Across multiple domains, the framework achieves perfect structural recovery under a supervised, known-structure setting. These results establish neural assemblies as an auditable bridge between biologically plausible dynamics and formal causal models, offering an "explainable by design" framework where causal claims are traceable to specific neural winners and synaptic asymmetries.