Skip to content

Causal Attribution for Agentic Decisions: Estimators, Coupling, and a Traceability Specification

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 33 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The coupling that keeps the direct effect estimable once contexts diverge is derived, with a closed form for its degradation, and it is shown that the mediated share on which a natural ranking is built is not a share under suppression.

Abstract

A provider of a high-risk AI system must keep records that make a decision traceable, and for agentic systems it has not been established what those records must contain for post-hoc causal attribution to be possible. We give the estimator framework and then the conditions under which it fails. We separate the marginal total effect that prior work measures from a common-random-numbers total effect that isolates a step's own contribution, add the natural direct effect under a pinned downstream, and check the estimators against hand derivations. Both estimands then fail, in the same direction. Under the marginal estimand a causally inert step has the identical total effect to the decisive one on every run of our planted chain, an algebraic identity and not a coincidence at one draw. Under common random numbers the decisive step returns exactly zero on the runs where the executing step flips, about one in ten, while its direct effect there is 0.25 and it demonstrably acts; an exact zero does not certify that a step did nothing, and we put that here rather than in the limitations. We derive the coupling that keeps the direct effect estimable once contexts diverge, with a closed form for its degradation, and show that the mediated share on which a natural ranking is built is not a share under suppression: where the direct and mediated paths oppose, it exceeds one and ranks a suppressed component above a pure mediator. We publish the discrepancy experiment's pre-registration rather than a result, because the live pipeline it requires was not available in the study window. We contribute the traceability specification such a filing would need, against a gap the Act's calendar opens: Article 86's right to an explanation has applied since 2 August 2026, while the Article 12 logging and Annex IV documentation that could evidence one were deferred to 2 December 2027 by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

CausalLoss-Fin: Attributing Financial-Agent Loss to Decisions and Infrastructure Faults

A benchmark whose fault process is explicit and replayable, decompose each episode's realised delivery schedule into named, individually repairable messages, and intervene on both the agent's choices and the infrastructure's and evaluates deterministic programmatic policies rather than language-model agents.

Abhishek B. Sharma · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

The Halt Vector: Internalizing a Causal Steering Intervention for Efficient Reasoning

The mechanism is a halt vector: a difference-of-means direction at layer 18 of this model whose steering strength controls how long it thinks, while a replicated value axis does nothing, and what works is reconstructing the whole steered activation with those dimensions pinned to their natural values.

Dylan Jayabahu, Tinuade Adeleke · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

What Would Falsify It? A Variable Specific Evidence Standard for Mechanistic Claims About Self Explanation

When a language model explains an answer it has already given, does it reuse the computation that produced the answer or reconstruct a story from the answer alone? Attribution, transportability and recoverability are each compatible with causal use without establishing it. We propose an evidence standard: pair each pos...

Arshia Eftekhari Zadeh · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Sep 2026

DNative-Twin: Decision Graphs and Digital Twins for Reconstructable Agentic Decisions

DNative-Twin is presented, a graph-native digital twin that records a committed agentic decision as a typed trajectory and re-executes its decision mechanism under declared conditions and instantiates the framework in enterprise decision processes using three public process logs and controlled replay suites.

Junjie Pang, Zhenzhen Xie, Hao-Ke Han et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

FinalityBench: An Effect-Level Benchmark for Agent Decisions Under Delayed and Conflicting Financial Finality

A merchant's payment processor, ledger, ERP and bank feed are updated by messages that get delayed, duplicated, dropped and reordered, so for minutes at a time the four hold contradictory beliefs about the same order. An agent resolving the exception must decide whether to ship goods, re-submit a capture, refund or wai...

Abhishek B. Sharma · 2 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

The Axiomatic Trader: Latent Regularity, Information Budgets, and the Canonical Form of a Quantitative Investment System

Systematic trading rests on one article of faith: that regularities found in the past persist. This paper does three things. First, it states that faith as five axioms, each a commonplace practitioners already accept: (A1) a decision may use only what was known when it was made; (A2) what looks like the market changing...

Jia-Yu Li · 0 citations

Related blog posts

Hugging Face Blog Oct 20, 2026

MPS in PyTorch 2.15

We’re on a journey to advance and democratize artificial intelligence through open source and open science.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.