@inproceedings{canby-etal-2025-reliable,
    title = "How Reliable are Causal Probing Interventions?",
    author = "Canby, Marc E.  and
      Davies, Adam  and
      Rastogi, Chirag  and
      Hockenmaier, Julia",
    editor = "Inui, Kentaro  and
      Sakti, Sakriani  and
      Wang, Haofen  and
      Wong, Derek F.  and
      Bhattacharyya, Pushpak  and
      Banerjee, Biplab  and
      Ekbal, Asif  and
      Chakraborty, Tanmoy  and
      Singh, Dhirendra Pratap",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
    month = dec,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Mumbai, India",
    publisher = "The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-ijcnlp-aacl/2025.ijcnlp-long.47/",
    pages = "857--878",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-298-5",
    abstract = "Causal probing aims to analyze foundation models by examining how intervening on their representation of various latent properties impacts their outputs. Recent works have cast doubt on the theoretical basis of several leading causal probing methods, but it has been unclear how to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of these methods in practice. To address this, we define two key causal probing desiderata: *completeness* (how thoroughly the representation of the target property has been transformed) and *selectivity* (how little non-targeted properties have been impacted). We find that there is an inherent tradeoff between the two, which we define as *reliability*, their harmonic mean. We introduce an empirical analysis framework to measure and evaluate these quantities, allowing us to make the first direct comparisons between different families of leading causal probing methods (e.g., linear vs. nonlinear, or concept removal vs. counterfactual interventions). We find that: (1) all methods show a clear tradeoff between completeness and selectivity; (2) more complete and reliable methods have a greater impact on LLM behavior; and (3) nonlinear interventions are almost always more reliable than linear interventions.Our project webpage is available at: [https://ahdavies6.github.io/causal{\_}probing{\_}reliability/](https://ahdavies6.github.io/causal{\_}probing{\_}reliability/)"
}