mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Entangled by Design: Spurious Intra-Variable Signal Routing in Tabular In-Context Learners

arXiv 2607.25532 ↗First posted 28 Jul 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Consider a model trained at a single hospital to predict patient recovery, where the measured feature X bundles the patient's true health signal (C) with a systematic artefact from that hospital's equipment (S). Within that hospital, the artefact correlates with outcomes through unmeasured confounders such as patient demographics; an in-context learner rationally routes predictions through S, not C, and fails silently when deployed at a new hospital with different equipment. We formalise this as spurious routing in composite representations: when a feature X = [C;,α S;,η] encodes a causal signal C and a spurious signal S in distinct subspaces, the ICL cannot determine which drives predictions. We prove that under ridge ICL, a linear in-context learner, this routing is unavoidable regardless of context size; TabPFN, a state-of-the-art pretrained tabular ICL model, shows qualitatively consistent behaviour empirically. We derive a closed-form characterisation, CSR propto ρS/ρC, confirmed at r = 0.997 for linear ICL and r = 0.979 for TabPFN. Contrary to intuition, larger context sharpens commitment to the dominant in-context signal, amplifying spurious routing by up to 1.74×; in the high-spurious corner, more expressive models show greater vulnerability empirically (+2.22 CSR gap at high entanglement). We introduce two lightweight mitigations: environment-stratified context construction and S-swap augmentation, that require only weak environment labels and no knowledge of the causal partition. S-swap reduces spurious routing by 74% for linear ICL and 98.8% for TabPFN, with TabPFN's causal sensitivity increasing 8.4× simultaneously: the model does not become agnostic, it reroutes through the causal signal.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

Builds on

12 of 20 references.

References · 12

  1. 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,832
  2. 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,232
  3. 2021An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inferencecited by 915
  4. 2020Out-of-Distribution Generalization via Risk Extrapolation (REx)cited by 737
  5. 2022Transformers learn in-context by gradient descentcited by 714
  6. 2022What Can Transformers Learn In-Context? A Case Study of Simple Function Classescited by 700
  7. 2022What learning algorithm is in-context learning? Investigations with linear modelscited by 671
  8. 2015Causal inference using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervalscited by 533
  9. 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
  10. 2021Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inferencecited by 338
  11. 2020Improve Unsupervised Domain Adaptation with Mixup Trainingcited by 185
  12. 2024Contrastive representations of high-dimensional, structured treatmentscited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.