arXiv:2607. 05806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training data for machine learning is routinely collected by a selection process the model never sees: loans are observed only when granted, outcomes only when a test was ordered.
By Gunner Levi Howe
arXiv:2607. 28308v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models route each token to multiple experts, suggesting a geometric account of their benefit: co-selected experts should contribute distinct representation directions.
By Huiyuan Tian, Bonan Xu, Shijian Li
arXiv:2606. 10703v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Leonard Engmann, Christian Medeiros Adriano, Holger Giese
arXiv:2608. 20187v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Practitioners inferring causality from observational data usually rely on a single method and treat its output as causal truth.
By Manish Gupta, Dipanjan De
arXiv:2606. 23767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Headline accuracies on the Tuebingen cause-effect pairs are routinely compared across papers even though each is measured under its authors' own protocol -- different pair subsets, weightings, model-selection, and decision rates.
By Wietse Stienstra
Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models route each token to multiple experts, suggesting a geometric account of their benefit: co-selected experts should contribute distinct representation directions. Existing evidence often conflates route coherence, candidate quality, and candidate-by-context interaction.