aiqbench analysis
This study marks the first practical implementation of causal perception, moving beyond theory to demonstrate how agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) derive divergent fairness assessments from identical interventions. By operationalizing both structural and parametric disagreements using real-world data, the research proves that bias is inherently situated within an agent's specific worldview rather than being a universal constant. These findings are critical for developing robust multi-expert AI systems where differing internal models must coexist without compromising overall decision integrity or equity metrics.
Implementing Causal Perception: Competing SCMs and Situated Fairness
arXiv:2608.03917v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) of the same system infer different probability distributions, including the hypothetical distributions implied by each agent's SCM under the same set of interventions. It shapes how agents reason about the system and how they perceive its fairness. Causal perception is a promising probabilistic framework, but it has remained purely theoretical. This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of \'Alvarez and Ruggieri (2025). We operationalize structural (agents disagree on the causal graph) and parametrical (agents agree on the causal graph but disagree on its weights) causal perception. We design algorithms for computing interventional and counterfactual distributions and propose suitable distance measures to quantify the disagreement. Using the German Credit dataset, we illustrate how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting. We show that the perception verdict is sensitive to the choice of distance metric and threshold. We also show that causal perception changes fairness assessments and threshold-based decisions. Bias proves situated with respect to the agent's SCM, demonstrating that competing worldviews in fairness problems cannot be ignored.
Abstract:Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) of the same system infer different probability distributions, including the hypothetical distributions implied by each agent's SCM under the same set of interventions. It shapes how agents reason about the system and how they perceive its fairness. Causal perception is a promising probabilistic framework, but it has remained purely theoretical. This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of Álvarez and Ruggieri (2025). We operationalize structural (agents disagree on the causal graph) and parametrical (agents agree on the causal graph but disagree on its weights) causal perception. We design algorithms for computing interventional and counterfactual distributions and propose suitable distance measures to quantify the disagreement. Using the German Credit dataset, we illustrate how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting. We show that the perception verdict is sensitive to the choice of distance metric and threshold. We also show that causal perception changes fairness assessments and threshold-based decisions. Bias proves situated with respect to the agent's SCM, demonstrating that competing worldviews in fairness problems cannot be ignored.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.03917 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.03917v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.03917 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 279 words
Related coverage

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Hint-based CoT faithfulness evals still mostly work on Claude
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

The world's best gradual disempowerment model organism: Frontier AI labs
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026