Large Language Models as Nondeterministic Causal Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22297v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 12:59:41 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models as Nondeterministic Causal Models
• Authors: Sander Beckers,
• Abstract summary: Recent work by Chatzi et al. and Ravfogel et al. has developed, for the first time, a method for generating counterfactuals of probabilistic Large Language Models.<n>I argue that the existing method rests on an ambiguous interpretation of LLMs.<n>I present a much simpler method for generating counterfactuals that is based on an LLM's intended interpretation by representing it as a nondeterministic causal model.
• Score: 5.079136838868448
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent work by Chatzi et al. and Ravfogel et al. has developed, for the first time, a method for generating counterfactuals of probabilistic Large Language Models. Such counterfactuals tell us what would - or might - have been the output of an LLM if some factual prompt ${\bf x}$ had been ${\bf x}^*$ instead. The ability to generate such counterfactuals is an important necessary step towards explaining, evaluating, and comparing, the behavior of LLMs. I argue, however, that the existing method rests on an ambiguous interpretation of LLMs: it does not interpret LLMs literally, for the method involves the assumption that one can change the implementation of an LLM's sampling process without changing the LLM itself, nor does it interpret LLMs as intended, for the method involves explicitly representing a nondeterministic LLM as a deterministic causal model. I here present a much simpler method for generating counterfactuals that is based on an LLM's intended interpretation by representing it as a nondeterministic causal model instead. The advantage of my simpler method is that it is directly applicable to any black-box LLM without modification, as it is agnostic to any implementation details. The advantage of the existing method, on the other hand, is that it directly implements the generation of a specific type of counterfactuals that is useful for certain purposes, but not for others. I clarify how both methods relate by offering a theoretical foundation for reasoning about counterfactuals in LLMs based on their intended semantics, thereby laying the groundwork for novel application-specific methods for generating counterfactuals.

Related papers

• LLMs Explain't: A Post-Mortem on Semantic Interpretability in Transformer Models [3.7965260744113163]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly popular in pervasive computing due to their versatility and strong performance.<n>This paper investigates how linguistic abstraction emerges in LLMs, aiming to detect it across different modules.<n> Attention-based explanations collapsed once we tested the core assumption that later-layer representations still correspond to tokens.<n>Property-inference methods applied to embeddings also failed because their high predictive scores were driven by methodological artifacts and dataset structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T12:46:37Z)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• Large Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation [66.84286617519258]
  Large language models are transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis.<n>Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I (false positive), Type II (false negative), Type S (wrong sign), or Type M (exaggerated effect) errors.<n>We find that intentional LLM hacking is strikingly simple. By replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science studies, we show that, with just a handful of prompt paraphrases, virtually anything can be presented as statistically significant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T17:58:53Z)
• DIF: A Framework for Benchmarking and Verifying Implicit Bias in LLMs [1.89915151018241]
  We argue that implicit bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) is not only an ethical, but also a technical issue.<n>We developed a method for calculating an easily interpretable benchmark, DIF (Demographic Implicit Fairness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T06:53:37Z)
• Bayesian Teaching Enables Probabilistic Reasoning in Large Language Models [50.16340812031201]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) do not update their beliefs as expected from the Bayesian framework.<n>We teach the LLMs to reason in a Bayesian manner by training them to mimic the predictions of an optimal Bayesian model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T20:13:04Z)
• Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains.<n>LLMs often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T14:34:32Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• $\forall$uto$\exists$val: Autonomous Assessment of LLMs in Formal Synthesis and Interpretation Tasks [21.12437562185667]
  This paper presents a new approach for scaling LLM assessment in translating formal syntax to natural language. We use context-free grammars (CFGs) to generate out-of-distribution datasets on the fly. We also conduct an assessment of several SOTA closed and open-source LLMs to showcase the feasibility and scalability of this paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T08:08:00Z)
• LLM Maybe LongLM: Self-Extend LLM Context Window Without Tuning [67.39585115936329]
  We argue that LLMs have inherent capabilities to handle long contexts without fine-tuning. We propose SelfExtend to extend the context window of LLMs by constructing bi-level attention information. We conduct comprehensive experiments on multiple benchmarks and the results show that our SelfExtend can effectively extend existing LLMs' context window length.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T18:30:51Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying [18.886091925252174]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in various tasks. One of their most prominent drawbacks is generating inaccurate or false information with a confident tone. We provide evidence that the LLM's internal state can be used to reveal the truthfulness of statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-26T02:49:38Z)

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.