Multiple studies have shown that neural networks can be behaviorally systematic, producing correct outputs for novel combinations of familiar parts. Whether they are also representationally systematic, that is, whether they represent these parts and their roles and use them to produce the outputs, remains hard to test, because each kind of evidence can mislead on its own: correct outputs can come from shortcuts, a decodable signal need not be used, an intervention can act through unintended pathways, and a failed search does not show absence. We propose a bounded evaluation protocol for representational systematicity (Bounded-RS): for an explanation that attributes a systematic behavior to a declared representation, it tests on a matched behavioral contrast whether that representation is recoverable and whether it is causally used, checks the validity of this evidence, and assigns the explanation one of four bounded states, Unsupported, Present-only, Causal-use, or Undetermined, through control-calibrated scores, gates, and stop rules. On a semantic-parsing testbed of 96 matched sets that we release, the tested role-filler Binding explanation of fine-tuned T5 models is Causal-use and the distributed Geometry explanation is Unsupported within its declared search space, verdicts that hold across calibration-compatible parameter configurations, training seeds, and T5-base. On 41 cases with known causal status, full adjudication licenses a false Causal-use in 1 of 34 noncausal cases, against 13 when recoverability is taken as use, without missing any causal case. Bounded-RS thus turns the question of representational systematicity, debated since Fodor and Pylyshyn, into comparable and falsifiable verdicts on declared explanations, each reported with the evidence pattern that licenses it and, for a negative, the search space that bounds it.
Wenshuo Wang Massachusetts Institute of Technology and South China University of Technology, Boyu Cao, Nan Zhuang China Mobile GBA Innovation Institute, Wei Li
A fundamental obstacle to causal discovery from text is the lack of causally annotated text data for use as ground truth, due to high annotation costs. This motivates an important task of generating text with causal graph annotations. Early template-based generation methods sacrifice text naturalness in exchange for high causal graph annotation accuracy. Recent Large Language Model (LLM)-dependent methods directly generate natural text from target graphs through LLMs, but do not guarantee causal graph annotation accuracy. Therefore, we propose iTAG, which performs real-world concept assignment to nodes before converting causal graphs into text in existing LLM-dependent methods. iTAG frames this process as an inverse problem with the causal graph as the target, iteratively examining and refining concept selection through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning so that the induced relations between concepts are as consistent as possible with the target causal relationships described by the causal graph. iTAG demonstrates both extremely high annotation accuracy and naturalness across extensive tests, and the results of testing text-based causal discovery algorithms with the generated data show high statistical correlation with real-world data. This suggests that iTAG-generated data can serve as a practical surrogate for scalable benchmarking of text-based causal discovery algorithms.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表