Abstract
Agents that act on real systems should predict what their actions will cause before acting. We study when causal structure helps a learned forward model do this, using a planner that rejects candidate actions whose simulated multi-step outcome is unsafe, in synthetic structural causal models where the true consequences are known. We compare the Action-Conditioned Latent Structural Causal Model (AC-LSCM: per-factor mechanisms over a learned sparse graph, actions as do-interventions) with three unstructured forward models on seven random graphs with 10 or 20 variables, a task configured by a fixed rule, and two controls: a do-wrapper that gives every model the same action semantics, and counterfactual data given to all models or to none. When its factors are the observed variables, AC-LSCM recovers the true graph exactly on every 10-variable graph and has lower three-step prediction error than every baseline in all 396 paired comparisons. Its excess safety violations over an oracle are 0.25 of the no-model level on 10-variable graphs (best baseline 0.31) and 0.41 on 20-variable graphs (0.53), and its margin is largest for two-variable actions never seen in training (0.18 versus 0.28). With learned latent factors the same model is worse than the baselines; the choice of factors matters more than the explicit do-operator or counterfactual data, and every planner stays far from the oracle. This version corrects an earlier one, whose model learned an empty graph and whose headline 36x safety improvement came from a task that tested only extrapolation of action values; we withdraw that claim. Code and all per-seed results are released.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34385
