Sentiment classification is a crucial task in natural language processing (NLP). To mitigate the spurious correlation, the causal word identification method estimates the impact of treatment words on sentence sentiment and removes those with low treatment effects. However, previous works regard the presence or absence of a specific word in a sentence as a binary treatment. This approach limits the generalizability to novel words and the robustness of low-frequency words. To bridge this gap, we propose a meta-causal approach that achieves causal word identification for arbitrary words with a single training task. Specifically, we begin by clustering contexts based on their embeddings obtained from a pre-trained language model. Subsequently, for each cluster, a representation and multi-head prediction networks are trained to estimate the treatment effect of each word to distinguish causally related words from spuriously correlated ones. The trained word classifier is then used to give weights for different words to train a more robust and generalizable sentiment classification model. Extensive experiments on public datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in identifying causal words and improving the performance of sentiment classification.

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are a prominent tool in mechanistic interpretability (MI) for decomposing neural network activations into interpretable features. However, the aspiration to identify a canonical set of features is challenged by the observed inconsistency of learned SAE features across different training runs, undermining reproducibility and complicating model comparison. We study run-to-run feature consistency in SAEs and argue that it should be reported as a standard evaluation axis alongside reconstruction and sparsity. We propose the Pairwise Dictionary Mean Correlation Coefficient (PW-MCC) as an assignment-based metric to quantify consistency and demonstrate that high levels are achievable (PW-MCC ≈ 0.80 for TopK SAEs on LLM activations) with appropriate architectural choices.Our contributions include: (i) theoretical grounding for strong consistency in the idealized setting of TopK SAEs; (ii) synthetic validation using a model organism, which verifies PW-MCC as a reliable proxy for ground-truth recovery; and (iii) empirical analysis on LLM activations, where PW-MCC correlates with the similarity of automatically generated natural-language feature explanations.

Diffusion-based large language models offer a non-autoregressive alternative for text generation, but enabling them to perform complex reasoning remains challenging. Reinforcement learning has recently emerged as an effective post-training strategy for improving their performance; however, existing methods rely primarily on outcome-based rewards, which provide no direct supervision over the denoising process and often result in poorly structured reasoning that is difficult to interpret and inconsistently supports the final prediction. To address this limitation, we introduce denoising process reward, a process-level reinforcement signal defined over the denoising trajectory of diffusion language models. This reward is obtained by estimating the contribution of intermediate denoising intervals to the final task outcome, encouraging the model to favor reasoning trajectories that consistently guide generation toward correct predictions. We further propose an efficient stochastic estimator that reuses standard training rollouts, enabling practical process-level supervision at scale. Experiments on challenging reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our approach yields consistent improvements in reasoning stability, interpretability, and overall task performance.

Natural language processing applications are increasingly prevalent, but social biases in their outputs remain a critical challenge. While various bias evaluation methods have been proposed, these assessments show unexpected instability when input texts undergo minor stylistic changes. This paper conducts a comprehensive analysis of how different style transformations impact bias evaluation results across multiple language models and bias types using causal inference techniques. Our findings reveal that formality transformations significantly affect bias scores, with informal style showing substantial bias reductions (up to 8.33% in LLaMA-2-13B). We identify appearance bias, sexual orientation bias, and religious bias as most susceptible to style changes, with variations exceeding 20%. Larger models demonstrate greater sensitivity to stylistic variations, with bias measurements fluctuating up to 3.1% more than in smaller models. These results highlight critical limitations in current bias evaluation methods and emphasize the need for reliable and fair assessments of language models.