mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Computational Provenance: Carrying Causal-State Evidence in Generated Text

arXiv 2608.16868 ↗First posted 17 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A language model's output does not by itself provide verifiable evidence about the internal computation that produced it. We study computational provenance: whether generated text can carry detectable evidence of which causally relevant internal state occurred. We test a bounded form of this idea in two controlled architectures: a modular feed-forward neural network and a transformer-based model. Both architectures are trained on the same arithmetic task with a mandatory pathway through two discrete intermediate states, allowing different internal paths to produce the same answer. We deliberately switch between these paths, authenticate the state actually used, and let that verified state determine a subtle statistical pattern in the generated text that can later be detected. The feed-forward and transformer systems each passed all 128 matched pairs in both their public and separately sealed protected end-to-end evaluations, with the detector recovering the signal associated with the authenticated internal state. The required causal computation also reproduced across five independently trained feed-forward models and three independently trained transformers. In a separate answer-only transformer experiment, our linear probes did not recover a naturally learned intermediate state. These results provide a controlled proof of concept that information about a verified, causally relevant internal state can be preserved in generated text even when the answer is unchanged.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Aug 2026.

Builds on

24 of 28 references.

References · 24

  1. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  2. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  3. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  4. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
  5. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
  6. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
  7. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
  8. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
  9. 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 467
  10. 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 422
  11. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
  12. 2023Robust Distortion-free Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 320
12 more
  1. 2022Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Modelscited by 225
  2. 2023The Hydra Effect: Emergent Self-repair in Language Model Computationscited by 156
  3. 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 146
  4. 2021Inducing Causal Structure for Interpretable Neural Networkscited by 110
  5. 2018Slalom: Fast, Verifiable and Private Execution of Neural Networks in Trusted Hardwarecited by 102
  6. 2026Verbalizable Representations Form a Global Workspace in Language Modelscited by 75
  7. 2023A Closer Look at the Intervention Procedure of Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 64
  8. 2017SafetyNets: Verifiable Execution of Deep Neural Networks on an Untrusted Cloudcited by 50
  9. 2024SVIP: Towards Verifiable Inference of Open-source Large Language Modelscited by 6
  10. 2026AEX: Non-Intrusive Multi-Hop Attestation and Provenance for LLM APIscited by 3
  11. 2026SLAM: Structural Linguistic Activation Marking for Language Modelscited by 2
  12. 2026Echoes within the Reasoning: Stealthy and Effective Watermarking via Chain of Thoughtcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026GenProve: Learning to Generate Text with Fine-Grained Provenance
  2. 2024Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency
  3. 2024Towards Faithful Natural Language Explanations: A Study Using Activation Patching in Large Language Models
  4. 2026Utility Under Attack: Agent Memory Poisoning and the Limits of Content Screening and Provenance Ranking
  5. 2024Investigating Factuality in Long-Form Text Generation: The Roles of Self-Known and Self-Unknown
  6. 2026Confidence Geometry Reveals Trace-Level Correctness in Large Language Model Reasoning
  7. 2026Linear Separability of Activation Representations after Supervised Fine-Tuning on Incorrect Responses: A Study of Synthetic Dishonesty in Large Language Models
  8. 2026From Concept Alignment to Causal Grounding: An Intervention Test of Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness