Prediction Bottlenecks Don't Discover Causal Structure (But Here's What They Actually Do)

Ankit Hemant Lade, Sai Krishna Jasti, Indar Kumar, Aman Chadha

Prediction Bottlenecks Don't Discover Causal Structure (But Here's What They Actually Do): 0 upvotes on Hugging Face Daily Papers, #63 of 68 papers on 2026-05-12. Day-by-day upvote history.

A Mamba state-space model trained only for next-step prediction appears to recover Granger-causal structure through a simple readout S = |W_{out} W_{in}|, with early experiments suggesting the phenomenon generalized across architectures and benefited from interventional data at p < 10^{-5}. We package the protocol used to test that claim -- standardized synthetic generators (VAR/Lorenz/CauseMe-style), three intervention semantics (do(X=c), soft-noise, random-forcing), edge-provenance cards on three real datasets, and size-matched control arms -- as a reusable falsification benchmark, and walk the claim through it in five stages. The method-level claim does not survive: (i) a plain linear bottleneck does as well or better; (ii) tuned Lasso beats the bottleneck on synthetic CauseMe-style benchmarks, and on Lorenz-96 (the only real benchmark with unambiguous ground truth) classical PCMCI and Granger lead a tight cluster in which the bottleneck trails; (iii) the headline intervention advantage is roughly 60% a sample-size confound, and the residual disappears under standard do(X=c) interventions, surviving only under a non-standard random-forcing scheme; (iv) even that residual reproduces, with a larger effect, in classical bivariate Granger -- the effect is method-agnostic. What survives is a narrow characterization result; the benchmark is the lasting artifact, and each stage above is one of its control arms.

Paper page on Hugging Face · arXiv

Data: hysts-bot-data/daily-papers-stats and the Daily Papers API. Open data: tardellirs/paper-pulse-data. Sister project: Model Pulse, the download history of every model on the Hub.