arXiv:2607. 29484v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interventional data is widely regarded as the gold standard for teaching models causal reasoning.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2606. 15779v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal models can name the action units (AUs) behind a facial emotion, but their AU->emotion rationales are typically plausible rather than faithful: nothing forces the AUs a model invokes to be the AUs that actually drive its prediction.
The paper introduces the concept of causal retention in interactive agents, examining whether a frozen learned state can correctly answer a mechanism‑probe map that is fixed independently of training. It shows that for finite structural causal models the optimal probe error is a Bayes decision risk, vanishing only when each learning‑interface fiber lies within a single probe‑answer fiber, and provides theoretical results such as a posterior‑coverage theorem and an exact edit decomposition. Experiments on finite causal systems, continuous simulators, TD‑MPC2, and Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct demonstrate that causal retention can be achieved with high accuracy, outperforming task‑performance‑based approaches.
Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence).
The study evaluates 12 instruction‑tuned open‑weight LLMs on six causal‑graph benchmarks, testing five prompting strategies and four confidence sources. Findings show that LLMs tend to over‑predict edges, misclassify indirect or reversed edges as direct, and exhibit high over‑confidence, while conventional confidence estimates are unreliable and agreement signals offer limited improvement. The results suggest LLMs should be used as externally validated soft causal priors rather than definitive causal‑structure evidence.
arXiv:2607. 12985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged.
arXiv:2607. 01104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In Large Language Model (LLM) training, data mixing plays a pivotal role in determining model performance.