Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds LLM generation on retrieved documents, but the standard terminal retrieval stage--dense-vector similarity, optionally followed by reranking--often returns documents that share keywords with the query without containing the needed information, a failure mode that grows with the knowledge base. We trace it to a conceptual gap: similarity captures only associational relations, whereas the documents that matter are linked to the query causally. We model the terminal retrieval stage with a causal graph grounded in Reichenbach's common cause principle: the keywords shared by the query and a retrieved document form a latent common cause A, and the document's residual keywords form a latent set B linking the document to the ideal output. Since a retrieved document is a collider (A -> d <- B), retrieval itself opens an associational path between the query and B, which licenses a training-free, attention-style re-scoring rule: the cosine similarity between the query embedding and the weighted centroid embedding of B. Unlike causality-enhanced RAG variants that model causal relations inside the knowledge content, our graph models the causal structure of the retrieval process itself. On a real 471-document enterprise knowledge base, the method promotes a relevant guideline from rank 6 to the top 3; on a controlled diagnostic corpus reproducing the keyword-stuffing regime, it improves the mean target rank from 2.88 to 1.25, while a trained cross-encoder reranker barely helps (2.63). Conversely, on three BEIR benchmarks the score underperforms the similarity baseline, delineating the applicability boundary: the method guards the keyword-stuffing regime of growing proprietary knowledge bases and complements neural rerankers; a corpus-level calibration gate selects the correct regime with >= 95% reliability. A fully local testbed demonstrates deployability.
Event-centric intelligent analytical systems heavily depend on explicit causal event knowledge for risk early warning, decision-making support and narrative comprehension. Nevertheless, existing instance-level causal pairs suffer severe generalization deficits on low-frequency long-tail and unseen event combinations. To address this limitation, this work proposes Abstract Event Causal Rule (AECR), a novel relation-level causal abstraction paradigm that transforms concrete cause-effect pairs into generalized abstract causal logic while retaining their intrinsic causal relationships. We design a multi-agent Concrete-to-Abstract Causal Induction (CACI) system coupled with similarity-constrained clustering to distill trustworthy AECRs from noisy raw causal data, based on which two complete AECR knowledge bases are built. To validate the practical utility of abstract causal knowledge, we propose an Abstract Rule-Guided Causal Attention Encoder (AR-GCAE), which injects the retrieved AECRs into the causality Graph Event Prediction (CGEP) benchmark task via rule-guided attention layers and gated representation fusion. Quantitative experimental results reveal that applying AECRs substantially strengthens the generalization capacity of event causal reasoning and brings consistent performance improvements to event prediction, with the most prominent gains observed on rare and unseen event samples.
In Large Language Model (LLM) training, data mixing plays a pivotal role in determining model performance. Recent methods optimize mixture weights via proxy models, but they rely on the assumption of static data distributions. As a result, when the underlying data pool shifts, these methods require costly retraining from scratch. This limitation restricts their ability to scale seamlessly from small settings to larger data pools and model sizes. In this paper, we propose CausalMix to address this limitation by casting data mixture optimization as a causal inference problem. We formulate the statistical features of the data pool as covariates and the domain mixture as the treatment. After fitting a causal model on 512 runs of Qwen2.5-0.5B to estimate the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE), we extrapolate the optimal mixture for an 800K data pool and apply it to train a 7B model. Furthermore, we successfully generalize the framework to long chain-of-thought data on Qwen3-4B-Base. By leveraging causal modeling to isolate confounding biases, CausalMix dynamically infers state-dependent optimal data mixtures. Extensive experiments show that the mixture guided by CausalMix consistently improves performance across multiple downstream tasks, outperforming RegMix and other baselines. In addition, we use the CATE Interpreter to provide visual analysis of the learned mixing strategy. Overall, CausalMix offers a causal and interpretable framework for optimizing LLM data mixtures.
Because large language models (LLMs) are impressively successful in predicting text, it appears that they must have access to a 'world model' representing causal and definitional structure. However, the dominant formalisms of modern causal inference -- Judea Pearl's interventionist approach and the Neyman-Rubin potential outcomes framework -- struggle to illuminate how LLMs learn causal structure. I resolve this puzzle by arguing that LLMs employ a specific inductive approach based on a difference-making logic -- sometimes called variational induction. I demonstrate how central aspects of this logic are realized during training, where LLMs require enormous amounts of text data from a wide range of contexts to identify difference- and indifference-makers within word sequences. Furthermore, I analyze specific architectural features of LLMs -- such as token embeddings and self-attention -- to determine their roles in variational induction. The difference-making logic of LLMs fundamentally parallels the experimental method, where causal relations are derived by systematically varying individual circumstances to determine their influence on a phenomenon.
Leonard Engmann, Christian Medeiros Adriano, Holger Giesecs.LG cs.CL
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 after multiple-comparison correction in any model, with effect sizes below Cohen's $d = 0.17$ across all 60 metric-layer combinations. A per-token routing weight control rules out insufficient power, recovering a single Bonferroni-significant signal at OLMoE's final MoE layer ($d = +0.231$, $p = 0.0013$). 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.
We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Zero-shot LLMs regularly inflate effect sizes relative to human annotations, while fine-tuning often attenuates them back toward the human scale. Our results have implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses: they may be reliable for recovering the presence and direction of effects on the partisan topics, but not their magnitude, leading to over- or under-prediction of some ideology given particular topics.
Online reviews provide valuable insights into the perceived quality of facets of a product or service. While aspect-based sentiment analysis has focused on extracting these facets from reviews, there is less work understanding the impact of each aspect on overall perception. This is particularly challenging given correlations among aspects, making it difficult to isolate the effects of each. This paper introduces a methodology based on recent advances in text-based causal analysis, specifically CausalBERT, to disentangle the effect of each factor on overall review ratings. We enhance CausalBERT with three key improvements: temperature scaling for better calibrated treatment assignment estimates; hyperparameter optimization to reduce confound overadjustment; and interpretability methods to characterize discovered confounds. In this work, we treat the textual mentions in reviews as proxies for real-world attributes. We validate our approach on real and semi-synthetic data from over 600K reviews of U.S. K-12 schools. We find that the proposed enhancements result in more reliable estimates, and that perception of school administration and performance on benchmarks are significant drivers of overall school ratings.