Causal Intervention

Multimodal large language models often capture visual-linguistic correlations but struggle to predict how local visual interventions propagate and affect downstream answers. We introduce InfluenceField, an intervention-aware latent field inserted between the visual encoder and language decoder. It lifts patch features into a continuous spatial representation, propagates directed influence over multiple steps, and predicts local intervention effects through a shared transition operator. Training jointly optimizes language modeling, cross-environment invariance, counterfactual rollout supervision, and structural regularization. For a nonlinear finite-basis population model, we show that target-aligned interventional supervision, together with a one-step separation condition on the transition, restricts admissible representations to within-location reparameterizations, so that the directed dependency graph of the full transition is recovered exactly. A linear specialization gives an exact partial-coverage characterization and a finite-loss stability bound, and the field analysis derives the spatial profile of coefficient interventions together with a shared-channel calibration result. On CausalVQA, InfluenceField improves overall accuracy over its backbone by 13.1 percentage points, with the largest gains on the planning and hypothetical categories. Capacity-matched baselines and structural controls attribute the gains in robustness and factual-counterfactual consistency to the causal objectives rather than to added capacity.

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.

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.

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.

Accurate Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is critical for reliable deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet traditional probability-based metrics often fail to capture the model's true epistemic state. While recent mechanistic approaches leverage hidden state dynamics, they typically aggregate residual stream updates, conflating the distinct roles of parametric memory (Feed-Forward Networks) and contextual processing (Attention). We argue that this aggregation obscures fine-grained mechanistic conflicts, such as memory-context misalignment, that are fundamental indicators of uncertainty. To address this, we introduce \textbf{D}ecoupled \textbf{U}pdate \textbf{D}ynamics \textbf{(DUD)}, a framework that explicitly decouples FFN and Attention contributions via noise-induced causal interventions. By quantifying the independent restoration capabilities of each module, we construct a dual-stream dynamic profile that captures the model's internal fragility. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DUD significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both uncertainty estimation and calibration, while exhibiting superior cross-dataset generalization, validating decoupled dynamics as a robust proxy for model faithfulness.

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

Fine-tuned code LLMs are routinely conditioned on a design-intent specification, but the correctness axis of such a signal -- a wrong intent rather than an absent one -- has not been tested, and the benefit of conditioning is usually scored with the same detector that defines the signal. We study CADCON, a five-feature design-intent header prepended to CadQuery-style programs during LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B, scoring adherence with executable geometric assertions that share no code with the header-defining extractor. On a pre-registered sample of 400 deduplicated held-out programs stratified over eleven intent profiles, at 40% prefix and three seeds, a semantically wrong header degrades adherence below the never-header-trained baseline on 3/3 seeds under both tokenizations at the program level, and on 3/3 token and 2/3 text seeds at the 298 distinct model inputs they present. Wrong-header executability is not depressed relative to that baseline. A derangement control, retrained so every program receives another program's header -- holding the header marginal fixed while destroying its correlation with the program -- saw the same programs, indices and wrong headers. Its correct-to-wrong change is -0.006/+0.016/-0.003 against 0.124/0.241/0.230 for the standard model, and the interaction is significant on 3/3 seeds (p <= 5.9e-7), so the model's sensitivity to whether the header is right or wrong requires the learned mapping. The control sits below the baseline by the same margin under a correct as under a wrong header, so we claim that sensitivity and not the below-baseline level. On features the true intent lacks, the standard model realizes a feature far more often when the wrong header names it; the control does not. Ground truth itself scores only 0.567 here, the scale on which arm levels should be read. Wrong design intent is not inert: it actively misdirects generation.

Modern LLMs are alarmingly susceptible to surprisingly simple immaterial changes of input prompts: a casual hint, an incorrectly labeled few-shot example, or a fake prior assistant turn often flips an originally correct answer. We study where this susceptibility, spanning sycophancy and related cue-induced biases, lives inside the model. Across five model families and seven bias types, we extract a per-bias direction from hidden states and triangulate it through three measures: probing, leave-one-dataset-out (LODO) transfer, and causal intervention. The susceptibility is largely shaped by alignment tuning rather than pretraining: pretrained base models generally cave much less to these biases, and their activations carry much weaker cue-specific signal beyond question content. Within aligned models, each bias has a coherent linear direction that we can both decode and steer along, recovering the unbiased answer across every family we test. The biases do not collapse into a single shared representation, however: cross-bias overlap is model-specific, and even behaviorally similar biases occupy different directions. The same intervention also provides a proof-of-concept debiasing tool, recovering a meaningful share of bias-induced errors while preserving most correct answers across all instruct families. Cue-induced bias is therefore best understood not as a single flaw in LLMs but as a family of causally effective linear directions that are largely shaped by alignment tuning.

Tool-augmented large language models extend their capabilities beyond parametric knowledge through external tools, but tend to invoke them unnecessarily. We investigate whether tool-use decisions have any stable internal representation that can be extracted and manipulated, a question that is non-trivial given that tools exist entirely in context at inference time and have no direct encoding in model weights. We show that steering vectors extracted from heading-anchors positions exert bidirectional causal control over tool-invocation behavior across five open-source models and three domains, suppressing unnecessary tool use most effectively in domains where parametric reasoning suffices. However, geometric analysis reveals that this causal effectiveness does not correspond to clean linear structure: tool-invocation steps exhibit diffuse, bimodal alignment with the suppression vector rather than the consistent negative alignment a linear encoding account would predict, and different tool types recruit largely distinct internal signatures with low cross-tool feature overlap. We hypothesize these geometric properties are indicative of the non-parametric nature of tools, and distinguish tool-use steering vectors from those extracted for parametrically grounded concepts. The relationship between this geometric irregularity and the observed causal effectiveness remains an open question.

Deep learning models for medical diagnosis frequently exhibit substantial performance disparities across sensitive subgroups (e.g., race, sex), even when average accuracy is high. While generative data augmentation offers a route to mitigate this, existing strategies are suboptimal; they typically address only one or two dependency channels between sensitive attributes and image features. We formalize the medical image formation process via a structural causal model, revealing that sensitive attributes actually influence image content through four distinct pathways-a structural complexity neglected by prior works. Based on this insight, we introduce CIPHER (Causal Intervention Pathways for Healthcare Equity and Robustness), a framework designed to systematically intervene on all four causal paths. To achieve this, CIPHER utilizes a diffusion backbone equipped with classifier-free guidance and null-text inversion. This technical design enables the faithful reconstruction of patient-specific anatomy while allowing for the precise, editable synthesis of counterfactuals required to break sensitive dependency chains. We tested CIPHER using chest X-ray and dermoscopy benchmarks across both standard and shifted data distributions. By employing a multi-pathway intervention strategy, our model reduced worst-group disparities by an average of 35.8% compared to disease-conditioned synthesis baselines, while also improving total diagnostic accuracy

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.

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.

Flow-matching transformers achieve strong audio separation, yet their attention dynamics are opaque. We adapt established causal-intervention principles into a deterministic, inference-time probing protocol for SAM Audio. Orthogonal probing uncovers a dual-pathway text-conditioning mechanism: additive injections control semantic identity, while cross-attention refines acoustic structure. We observe an asynchronous layerwise convergence: stable layers build temporal scaffolds early, whereas fast layers continue resolving artifacts during sampling. The model also attenuates temporal segmentation cues to maintain continuous-flow stability. Using these insights, we propose Layer-Selective Attention Caching (LSAC), a training-free acceleration method that caches attention in stable layers. Across acoustic complexities, LSAC cuts self-attention computation by about ~25% with negligible quality loss and yields up to 6.7x higher quality retention than naive step reduction.

A central goal of mechanistic interpretability is to identify which internal components causally drive a language model's behavior. Because these importance estimates serve as the evidence for identifying circuits, systematic errors can lead to the misidentification of the underlying mechanisms. While activation patching provides a gold-standard causal metric, its computational cost is prohibitive at scale. Practitioners instead rely on attribution patching, a gradient-based, first-order approximation whose reliability remains poorly understood. In this work, we characterize the source of this unreliability, demonstrating that the dominant error stems from the non-linearities in the downstream network rather than local curvature at the patched component. This insight yields three practical tools: (i) a reliability score to detect untrustworthy estimates, (ii) error bounds quantifying potential attribution mis-specifications, and (iii) a Hessian-vector-product (HVP) correction that eliminates the leading-order error with only one additional backward pass. In evaluations across five model families (124M-9B parameters) and both random-token and naturalistic (name-swap) perturbations, HVP is the only second-order correction feasible at larger scale, where standard baselines like Integrated Gradients become computationally prohibitive. In comparative experiments, a multi-step HVP variant matches or exceeds the accuracy of Integrated Gradients at significantly lower compute, outperforming prior second-order baselines. These improvements lead to higher-fidelity circuit recovery on standard benchmarks and support a Screen-Flag-Fix workflow that targets computational effort only toward the components flagged as unreliable.

Causal interventions in language model representations have largely targeted discrete features, like grammatical number. However, language models must also make use of features that are graded. We introduce a method for causal intervention on continuous variables: given activation vectors paired with a graded target variable, we localize a low-dimensional direction for that variable and use this direction to edit a vectors toward counterfactual target values. We apply this method to a continuous feature that is well-studied in psycholinguistics, namely verb bias (which reflects which syntactic structures tend to follow a given verb). We show that verb bias is causally represented in steering vectors extracted from large language models: counterfactual edits to verb bias systematically shift downstream structural preferences. Verb bias has also previously been linked to in-context learning; in further analyses, we find that steering vectors encode error signals that could drive the error-driven update behavior seen in in-context learning but that these aspects of the steering vectors are not causally used in downstream production. Overall, these results show causal interventions can be applied to continuous variables, though connecting continuous variables to in-context learning remains a challenge.

AI-driven respiratory sound classification (RSC) is promising for automated pulmonary disease detection, yet multi-site deployment is hindered by inter-stethoscope variability. We introduce a federated domain generalization (FedDG) formulation for RSC in which clients hold recordings from different stethoscopes and the model is evaluated on an unseen device. Our empirical analysis shows that stethoscope-induced style and disease-relevant content are partially entangled, making deterministic style removal unreliable. In response, we propose BTS-CAFE, a framework combining (i) causality-inspired device-style interventions with constraints designed to limit content distortion, (ii) counterfactual metadata augmentation to relieve device and demographic shortcuts, and (iii) gradient alignment to promote device-invariant decision boundaries across clients. Built on BTS with CLAP, a multimodal language-audio pretraining model, BTS-CAFE improves the out-of-distribution ICBHI Score by 3.69 points on average over five held-out devices relative to its backbone, and outperforms conventional data augmentation and federated learning baselines in simulated device leave-out evaluations on the ICBHI and SPRSound datasets.

A central puzzle for the behavioural sciences and for human-facing artificial intelligence is the persistence of within-person variability. The same individual, presented with the same observable input, produces different outcomes on different occasions, and different individuals produce divergent outcomes that no observable covariate fully predicts. We argue that this variability belongs in the dynamic latent state of the person, and that human outcomes are controllable in a precise and operational sense through interventions that target the state and its weighting at the moment a decision is being formed. We define a state as the time-indexed weighting vector over the dimensions that govern how an individual's biology, physiology, and neuropsychology process the next event into a decision and an outcome. The relationship between state, decision, and outcome is causal rather than correlational. The weighting vector is dynamic at sub-daily timescales. The conscious channel through which outcomes are reportable is a narrow attentional bottleneck whose contents are themselves state-dependent. Taken together, these claims imply that the outcome of a given event is controllable, conditionally, on the state-trajectory at the time of intervention. We motivate the framework with six strands of established evidence (causal inference, predictive processing, allostasis, attentional bottleneck, chronobiology, computational psychiatry) and a 24-month observational base from a deployed behavioural platform spanning more than 200,000 consented users across four occupational personas (research period 2023 to 2026). We derive seven testable predictions, list six operational requirements for state-aware systems, and discuss implications for digital health, education, AI personalisation, and personal agency.

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.

Large language model (LLM) agents frequently fail on multi-step tasks involving reasoning, tool use, and environment interaction. While such failures are typically logged or retried heuristically, they contain structured signals about where execution broke down. We introduce CausalFlow, an interventional framework that converts failed agent traces into minimal counterfactual repairs and reusable supervision. CausalFlow models execution traces as sequential chains of dependent steps and computes Causal Responsibility Scores(CRS) via step-level counterfactual intervention to identify failure-inducing steps. For these steps, we generate minimally edited repairs that flip the final outcome to success, producing validated contrastive pairs of the form (wrong step, corrected step). CausalFlow supports two complementary uses: targeted test-time repair that recovers from failures with minimal behavioral drift, and training-time supervision suitable for offline preference optimization or reward modeling. Across four benchmarks spanning mathematical reasoning, code generation, question answering, and medical browsing, CausalFlow converts failed executions into validated minimal repairs with high minimality and causal-consensus scores, and demonstrates that causal attribution is necessary for reliable improvement across diverse agent tasks, outperforming heuristic refinement in complex retrieval settings while producing more localized repairs throughout. These results demonstrate that interventional analysis over structured execution traces provides a principled and scalable mechanism for transforming agent failures into reliability gains and learning-ready supervision.

Large language models (LLMs) show potential as simulators of human behavior, offering a scalable way to study responses to interventions. However, because LLMs are trained largely on observational data, interventions in experiments with LLM-simulated synthetic users can induce unintended shifts in latent user attributes, causing user drift where the implicit simulated population differs across treatment conditions, potentially distorting effect estimates. We formalize the confounding or selection bias that can arise due to user drift and show how intervention-dependent shifts can inflate or attenuate observed differences in user responses under intervention. To diagnose confounding, we propose using negative control outcomes--attributes that should remain invariant under intervention--to identify distribution shifts across intervention conditions, providing evidence of user drift. To mitigate drift, we study adjusting the persona specification by eliciting additional confounders, finding that targeted, setting-relevant confounders can substantially reduce bias across survey-style and multi-turn agent evaluations.

Modality-conflict hallucination occurs when multimodal large language models (MLLMs) prioritize erroneous textual premises over contradictory visual evidence. To understand why visual evidence fails to prevail during generation, we take a mechanistic perspective and examine which internal components drive or resist this failure. We perform head-level causal analysis using path patching across five open-source MLLMs and identify two groups of attention heads with opposing causal roles: hallucination-driving heads and hallucination-resisting heads. We find a consistent asymmetry: driving effects are more broadly distributed and carry greater aggregate weight, whereas resisting effects concentrate in a small number of high-importance heads. Ablation experiments further confirm that these groups exert opposing effects during generation: distributed driving influence and localized resistance together form an imbalanced routing structure that biases generation toward the erroneous premise. Motivated by this finding, we propose MACI (Modality-conflict-Aware Causal Intervention), a conditional intervention that suppresses causally identified hallucination-driving heads only when conflict is detected. Across five MLLMs, MACI achieves the largest hallucination reduction among compared inference-time baselines on the MMMC benchmark with a favorable hallucination-accuracy trade-off, and transfers zero-shot to the SCI-SemanticConflict test.

Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful. This assumption is fragile because memories may be topically related while remaining irrelevant, stale, or misleading. We propose Causal Memory Intervention (CMI), a causal memory-selection technique that estimates how candidate memories affect the model's answer under controlled interventions, selecting memories that improve task performance while suppressing unstable, irrelevant, or harmful ones. To evaluate this setting, we introduce Causal-LoCoMo, a causally annotated benchmark derived from long conversational data, where each example contains a user request, a structured memory bank, useful memories, irrelevant distractors, and synthetic harmful memories. We compare CMI against vector, graph, reflection, summary, full-history, and no-memory baselines. Results show that CMI achieves a stronger balance between answer quality and robustness to misleading memory, suggesting that reliable long-term memory requires selecting context based on causal usefulness rather than relevance alone. The full framework, benchmark construction code, and experimental pipeline are available at https://github.com/Saksham4796/causal-memory-intervention.

Model-Based Reinforcement Learning yields sample efficiency via latent imagination, yet remains constrained by Historical Tethering: imagination is typically initialized from observed states. This creates a learning asymmetry, where the world model's manifold discovery outpaces the policy's sparse-reward optimization. We propose Mind Dreamer (MD), a framework that instantiates Active Causal Intervention to transcend Markovian continuity. MD reformulates discovery as the minimization of a global Relay Expected Free Energy. Instead of initializing from historical data, it draws initial states from an adversarial generator $s_0 \sim p_{gen}(\cdot)$, creating non-continuous latent jumps to epistemic blind spots that are physically plausible yet cognitively challenging. We derive Relay Value Function and Relay Uncertainty Function to resolve the credit assignment paradox across these spatial ruptures. Treating synthesized anchors as interventional intermediary states, these potentials propagate pragmatic and epistemic value through Bellman-style backups. Notably, we prove that uncertainty propagation across discontinuities necessitates a quadratic discount $γ^2$, establishing a formal epistemic horizon. Theoretically, MD approximates a variance-minimizing importance sampler that expands the manifold's spectral gap, reducing the hitting time to critical bottleneck states. Empirically, MD achieves a 1.67$\times$ average speedup over DreamerV3 on DeepMind Control Suite, reaching 8.8$\times$ in sparse-reward tasks.

A valid tool call is not necessarily a valid intervention. Tool-using language agents are guarded by schema validators, policy filters, provenance checks, state predictors, and self-verification, yet such safeguards do not certify that a state-changing action has an identifiable causal effect. In confounded workflows, the action that looks optimal in observational logs can reduce utility when executed. We introduce CIVeX, a causal intervention verifier that maps proposed actions to structural causal queries over a committed action-state graph, checks identifiability, and returns one of four auditable verdicts: EXECUTE, REJECT, EXPERIMENT, or ABSTAIN. Execution requires an assumption-scoped causal certificate carrying graph commitments, an identification argument, a one-sided lower confidence bound (LCB), provenance, and risk limits. On Causal-ToolBench (1,890 instances, 7 seeds), CIVeX yields zero observed false executions across moderate and adversarial confounding. Under adversarial confounding it reaches 84.9% accuracy and 81.1% of oracle utility (+2.23 vs +2.76) and is the only non-oracle method whose constrained utility under a zero-false-execution constraint exceeds the AlwaysAbstain floor. On IHDP and ZOZO Open Bandit (real production logs with uniform-random ground truth), CIVeX matches Oracle correct-execution within 0.1pp and cuts per-execute false-execution by >=50x over naive baselines. A chain-of-thought LLM verifier (Claude Opus, Sonnet) cuts false-execution by an order of magnitude over a terse baseline, yet under adversarial confounding Opus's utility falls to 74% of CIVeX's. Intervention identifiability, not action validity, is the missing primitive for reliable tool use.

Recent methods for improving LLM mathematical reasoning, whether through MCTS-based test-time search or causal graph-guided knowledge injection, cannot identify which concepts causally contribute to a correct answer, as the observed association may be spurious, driven by confounders such as problem difficulty. We propose CIKA (Causal Intervention for Knowledge Activation), a framework that uses the LLM itself as an interventional simulator: a prompt sets the concept state to ``mastered'' and the correctness change estimates the causal effect. We formalize this quantity as an Interventional Capability Probe (ICP), which diagnoses whether the LLM can use a given concept -- distinct from merely possessing knowledge. Because the intervention exogenously sets the concept state independently of problem difficulty, ICP separates confounding that observational methods cannot. On 67 screened problems, the ICP of the top-ranked concept (+0.219) is significantly larger than that of the negative control (+0.039; paired $t$-test, $p < 10^{-6}$, Cohen's $d = 0.86$), confirming that the probe discriminates causally relevant concepts from irrelevant ones. Analysis of 601 Omni-MATH problems further shows that solved problems have 6.1$\times$ higher ATE than unsolved ones (0.338 vs. 0.055), confirming that ICP is predictive of problem-solving success. With a 7B-parameter LLM whose weights are entirely frozen, CIKA achieves 69.7% on the contamination-free Omni-MATH-Rule benchmark and 64.0% overall, compared to 60.5% for o1-mini, and 97.2% on GSM8K, 46--50% on AIME 2024--2026, and 46.2% on MathArena. The Causal Knowledge Activation component contributes 33.8% of correct answers on problems where the base model alone fails, demonstrating that the LLM already possessed but had not activated the requisite knowledge.

Multimodalpersonalityunderstandingplaysacriticalroleinhuman centered artificial intelligence. Previous work mainly focus on learn-ing rich multimodal representations for video personality under standing. However, they often suffer from potential harm caused by subject bias (e.g., observable age and unobservable mental states), as subjects originate from diverse demographic backgrounds. Learn ing such spurious associations between multimodal features and traits may lead to unfair personality understanding. In this work, weconstruct aStructural Causal Model (SCM)toanalyze theimpact of these biases from a causal perspective, and propose a novel Dual Causal Adjustment Network (DCAN) to mitigate the interference of subject attributes on personality understanding. Specifically, we design a Back-door Adjustment Causal Learning (BACL) module to block spurious correlations from observable demographic factors via a prototype-based confounder dictionary, and subsequently ap ply a Front-door Adjustment Causal Learning (FACL) module to ad dress latent and unobservable biases throughalearnedmediatordic tionary intervention, thereby achieving causal disentanglement of representations for deconfounded reasoning. Importantly, we con struct a Demographic-annotated Multimodal Student Personality (DMSP) dataset to support the analysis and discussion of fairness related factors. Extensive experiments on the benchmark dataset CFI-V2 and our DMSPdataset demonstrate that DCAN consistently improves prediction accuracy, reaching 92.11% and 92.90%, respec tively. Meanwhile, the improvementsinthefairnessmetricsofequal opportunity and demographic parity are 6.57% and 7.97% on CFI-V2, and 15.38% and 20.06% on the DMSP dataset. Our code and DMSP dataset are available at https://github.com/Sabrina-han/DCAN

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.

LLMs frequently generate fictitious yet convincing citations, often expressing high confidence even when the underlying reference is wrong. We study this failure across 9 models and 108{,}000 generated references, and find that author names fail far more often than other fields across all models and settings. Citation style has no measurable effect, while reasoning-oriented distillation degrades recall. Probes trained on one field transfer at near-chance levels to the others, suggesting that hallucination signals do not generalize across fields. Building on this finding, we apply elastic-net regularization with stability selection to neuron-level CETT values of Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct and identify a sparse set of field-specific hallucination neurons (FH-neurons). Causal intervention further confirms their role: amplifying these neurons increases hallucination, while suppressing them improves performance across fields, with larger gains in some fields. These results suggest a lightweight approach to detecting and mitigating citation hallucination using internal model signals alone.

Over the past year, spatial intelligence has drawn increasing attention. Many prior works study it from the perspective of visual-spatial intelligence, where models have access to visuospatial information from visual inputs. However, in the absence of visual information, whether linguistic intelligence alone is sufficient to endow models with spatial intelligence, and how models perform relevant tasks with text-only inputs still remain unexplored. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on a fundamental and critical capability in spatial intelligence from a linguistic perspective: viewpoint rotation understanding (VRU). Specifically, LLMs and VLMs are asked to infer their final viewpoint and predict the corresponding observation in an environment given textual description of viewpoint rotation and observation over multiple steps. We find that both LLMs and VLMs perform poorly on our proposed dataset while human can easily achieve 100% accuracy, indicating a substantial gap between current model capabilities and the requirements of spatial intelligence. To uncover the underlying mechanisms, we conduct a layer-wise probing analysis and head-wise causal intervention. Our findings reveal that although models encode viewpoint information in the hidden states, they appear to struggle to bind the viewpoint position with corresponding observation, resulting in a hallucination in final layers. Finally, we selectively fine-tune the key attention heads identified by causal intervention to improve VRU performance. Experimental results demonstrate that such selective fine-tuning achieves improved VRU performance while avoiding catastrophic forgetting of generic abilities. Our dataset and code will be released at https://github.com/Young-Zhen/VRU_Interpret .

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate toxic content, posing significant risks for safe deployment. Current mitigation strategies often degrade generation quality or require costly human annotation. We propose CAUSALDETOX, a framework that identifies and intervenes on the specific attention heads causally responsible for toxic generation. Using the Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS), we isolate a minimal set of heads that are necessary and sufficient for toxicity. We utilize these components via two complementary strategies: (1) Local Inference-Time Intervention, which constructs dynamic, input-specific steering vectors for context-aware detoxification, and (2) PNS-Guided Fine-Tuning, which permanently unlearns toxic representations. We also introduce PARATOX, a novel benchmark of aligned toxic/non-toxic sentence pairs enabling controlled counterfactual evaluation. Experiments on ToxiGen, ImplicitHate, and ParaDetox show that CAUSALDETOX achieves up to 5.34% greater toxicity reduction compared to baselines while preserving linguistic fluency, and offers a 7x speedup in head selection.

Conventional image denoising models often inadvertently learn spurious correlations between environmental factors and noise patterns. Moreover, due to high-frequency ambiguity, they struggle to reliably distinguish subtle textures from stochastic noise, resulting in over-removed details or residual noise artifacts. We therefore revisit denoising via causal intervention, arguing that purely correlational fitting entangles intrinsic content with extrinsic noise, which directly degrades robustness under distribution shifts. Motivated by this, we propose the Teacher-Guided Causal Disentanglement Network (TCD-Net), which explicitly decomposes the generative mechanism via structured interventions on feature spaces within a Vision Transformer framework. Specifically, our method integrates three key components: (1) An Environmental Bias Adjustment (EBA) module projects features into a stable, de-centered subspace to suppress global environmental bias (de-confounding). (2) A dual-branch disentanglement head employs an orthogonality constraint to force a strict separation between content and noise representations, preventing information leakage. (3) To resolve structural ambiguity, we leverage Nano Banana Pro, Google's reasoning-guided AI image generation model, to guide a causal prior, effectively pulling content representations back onto the natural-image manifold. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TCD-Net outperforms mainstream methods across multiple benchmarks in both fidelity and efficiency, achieving a real-time speed of 104.2 FPS on a single RTX 5090 GPU.