How Reliable are Causal Probing Interventions?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15510v3
• Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 17:16:28 GMT
• Title: How Reliable are Causal Probing Interventions?
• Authors: Marc Canby, Adam Davies, Chirag Rastogi, Julia Hockenmaier,
• Abstract summary: Causal probing aims to analyze foundation models by examining how intervening on their representation impacts their outputs. Recent works have cast doubt on the theoretical basis of several leading causal probing methods.
• Score: 3.173096780177902
• License:
• Abstract: Causal probing aims to analyze foundation models by examining how intervening on their representation of various latent properties impacts their outputs. Recent works have cast doubt on the theoretical basis of several leading causal probing methods, but it has been unclear how to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of these methods in practice. To address this, we define two key causal probing desiderata: completeness (how thoroughly the representation of the target property has been transformed) and selectivity (how little non-targeted properties have been impacted). We find that there is an inherent tradeoff between the two, which we define as reliability, their harmonic mean. We introduce an empirical analysis framework to measure and evaluate these quantities, allowing us to make the first direct comparisons between different families of leading causal probing methods (e.g., linear vs. nonlinear, or concept removal vs. counterfactual interventions). We find that: (1) no method is reliable across all layers; (2) more reliable methods have a greater impact on LLM behavior; (3) nonlinear interventions are more reliable in early and intermediate layers, and linear interventions are more reliable in later layers; and (4) concept removal methods are far less reliable than counterfactual interventions, suggesting that they may not be an effective approach to causal probing.

Related papers

• ValUES: A Framework for Systematic Validation of Uncertainty Estimation in Semantic Segmentation [2.1517210693540005]
  Uncertainty estimation is an essential and heavily-studied component for semantic segmentation methods. Can data-related and model-related uncertainty really be separated in practice? Which components of an uncertainty method are essential for real-world performance?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-16T17:02:21Z)
• Causal Inference from Text: Unveiling Interactions between Variables [20.677407402398405]
  Existing methods only account for confounding covariables that affect both treatment and outcome. This bias arises from insufficient consideration of non-confounding covariables. In this work, we aim to mitigate the bias by unveiling interactions between different variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T11:29:44Z)
• Benchmarking Bayesian Causal Discovery Methods for Downstream Treatment Effect Estimation [137.3520153445413]
  A notable gap exists in the evaluation of causal discovery methods, where insufficient emphasis is placed on downstream inference. We evaluate seven established baseline causal discovery methods including a newly proposed method based on GFlowNets. The results of our study demonstrate that some of the algorithms studied are able to effectively capture a wide range of useful and diverse ATE modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T02:58:10Z)
• Nonparametric Identifiability of Causal Representations from Unknown Interventions [63.1354734978244]
  We study causal representation learning, the task of inferring latent causal variables and their causal relations from mixtures of the variables. Our goal is to identify both the ground truth latents and their causal graph up to a set of ambiguities which we show to be irresolvable from interventional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T10:51:58Z)
• Disentangled Representation for Causal Mediation Analysis [25.114619307838602]
  Causal mediation analysis is a method that is often used to reveal direct and indirect effects. Deep learning shows promise in mediation analysis, but the current methods only assume latent confounders that affect treatment, mediator and outcome simultaneously. We propose the Disentangled Mediation Analysis Variational AutoEncoder (DMAVAE), which disentangles the representations of latent confounders into three types to accurately estimate the natural direct effect, natural indirect effect and total effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T23:37:17Z)
• Valid Inference After Causal Discovery [73.87055989355737]
  We develop tools for valid post-causal-discovery inference. We show that a naive combination of causal discovery and subsequent inference algorithms leads to highly inflated miscoverage rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-11T17:40:45Z)
• Counterfactual Reasoning for Out-of-distribution Multimodal Sentiment Analysis [56.84237932819403]
  This paper aims to estimate and mitigate the bad effect of textual modality for strong OOD generalization. Inspired by this, we devise a model-agnostic counterfactual framework for multimodal sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-24T03:57:40Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Estimation of Bivariate Structural Causal Models by Variational Gaussian Process Regression Under Likelihoods Parametrised by Normalising Flows [74.85071867225533]
  Causal mechanisms can be described by structural causal models. One major drawback of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence is its lack of explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-06T14:52:58Z)
• Identifying Causal-Effect Inference Failure with Uncertainty-Aware Models [41.53326337725239]
  We introduce a practical approach for integrating uncertainty estimation into a class of state-of-the-art neural network methods. We show that our methods enable us to deal gracefully with situations of "no-overlap", common in high-dimensional data. We show that correctly modeling uncertainty can keep us from giving overconfident and potentially harmful recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-01T00:37:41Z)
• MissDeepCausal: Causal Inference from Incomplete Data Using Deep Latent Variable Models [14.173184309520453]
  State-of-the-art methods for causal inference don't consider missing values. Missing data require an adapted unconfoundedness hypothesis. Latent confounders whose distribution is learned through variational autoencoders adapted to missing values are considered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-25T12:58:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.