Inference Time Causal Probing in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Causal probing methods aim to test and control how internal representations influence the behavior of generative models. In causal probing, an intervention modifies hidden states so that a property takes on a different value. Most existing approaches define such interventions by training an auxiliary probe classifier, which ties the method to a specific task or model and risks misalignment with the model's predictive geometry. We propose Hidden-state Driven Margin Intervention (HDMI), a probe-free, gradient-based technique that directly steers hidden states using the model's native output. HDMI applies a margin objective that increases the probability of a target continuation while decreasing that of the source, without relying on probe classifiers. We further introduce a lookahead variant (LA-HDMI) for text editing that backpropagates through the softmax embeddings, modifying the current hidden state so that the likelihood of user-specified tokens increases in next token generations while preserving fluency. To evaluate interventions, we measure completeness (whether the targeted property changes as intended) and selectivity (whether unrelated properties are preserved), and report their harmonic mean as an overall measure of reliability. HDMI consistently achieves higher reliability than prior methods on the LGD agreement corpus and the CausalGym benchmark, across Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct, and Pythia-70M.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.
Builds on
27 of 31 references.
References · 27
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
- 2019Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generationcited by 799
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2021DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Expertscited by 441
- 2020GeDi: Generative Discriminator Guided Sequence Generationcited by 378
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
- 2023Attribution Patching Outperforms Automated Circuit Discoverycited by 209
15 more
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 207
- 2024ReFT: Representation Finetuning for Language Modelscited by 197
- 2018Adversarial Removal of Demographic Attributes from Text Datacited by 170
- 2023Future Lens: Anticipating Subsequent Tokens from a Single Hidden Statecited by 121
- 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 101
- 2021Counterfactual Interventions Reveal the Causal Effect of Relative Clause Representations on Agreement Predictioncited by 59
- 2024CausalGym: Benchmarking causal interpretability methods on linguistic taskscited by 46
- 2022Probing Classifiers are Unreliable for Concept Removal and Detectioncited by 41
- 2021What if This Modified That? Syntactic Interventions via Counterfactual Embeddingscited by 39
- 2025The Dual-Route Model of Inductioncited by 24
- 2024How Reliable are Causal Probing Interventions?cited by 11
- 2025Elucidating Mechanisms of Demographic Bias in LLMs for Healthcarecited by 8
- 2025LLMs Process Lists With General Filter Headscited by 7
- 2023Competence-Based Analysis of Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Disjoint Processing Mechanisms of Hierarchical and Linear Grammars in Large Language Modelscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.