Paper detail

Neural Information Causality

Query-separated computation forces a representation to play an operational role: data are encoded before a query is known, and a later decoder can answer only through the intermediate interface. In this regime the representation functions as a message rather than merely as a feature map. We formalize this observation by embedding information causality (IC) into representation learning, obtaining a framework called neural information causality (Neural-IC). The revised formulation separates two logically distinct statements. First, every query-separated architecture induces a random-access communication experiment and obeys the embedding inequality $I_{\mathrm{N\text{-}RAC}}\le I(\vec a:H,B)$. Second, any independently certified physical capacity bound on the interface, such as a hard $m$-bit alphabet, a finite-precision register, or a power-constrained noisy channel, implies $I_{\mathrm{N\text{-}RAC}}\le C_H$. This separation avoids treating capacity as a post hoc definition and makes Neural-IC an operational diagnostic for query leakage, precision leakage, and episode-specific memory. We also provide an exact one-bit classical RAC benchmark, showing explicitly that the relevant quantum enhancement is not total information beyond the bottleneck, but fair query-conditioned access. For CHSH-type correlation layers, nested Neural-RAC protocols multiply correlation biases across depth; requiring stability of a one-bit bottleneck for arbitrary depth selects the Tsirelson threshold. We extend the analysis to asymmetric seed biases, to multi-capacity finite-depth phase diagrams, and to correlated data via a conditional information score. Controlled simulations, including straight-through binary bottlenecks and deliberately leaky ablations, verify that apparent violations are accounted for by broken query separation or undercounted capacity.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.