Nuance Matters: Probing Epistemic Consistency in Causal Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00103v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:42:34 GMT
• Title: Nuance Matters: Probing Epistemic Consistency in Causal Reasoning
• Abstract summary: We study the self-consistency of Large Language Models in differentiating intermediates with nuanced differences in causal reasoning. We propose a suite of novel metrics to evaluate Large Language Models on this front. Our study bridges a critical gap in AI research by investigating the self-consistency over fine-grained intermediates involved in causal reasoning.
• Score: 13.70981639567884
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: To address this gap, our study introduces the concept of causal epistemic consistency, which focuses on the self-consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) in differentiating intermediates with nuanced differences in causal reasoning. We propose a suite of novel metrics -- intensity ranking concordance, cross-group position agreement, and intra-group clustering -- to evaluate LLMs on this front. Through extensive empirical studies on 21 high-profile LLMs, including GPT-4, Claude3, and LLaMA3-70B, we have favoring evidence that current models struggle to maintain epistemic consistency in identifying the polarity and intensity of intermediates in causal reasoning. Additionally, we explore the potential of using internal token probabilities as an auxiliary tool to maintain causal epistemic consistency. In summary, our study bridges a critical gap in AI research by investigating the self-consistency over fine-grained intermediates involved in causal reasoning.

Related papers

• Dementia Etiology Diagnosis via Collaborative Meta Knowledge Enhancement [81.27196033392559]
  We propose a Collaborative Meta Knowledge Enhancement (COME) framework for dementia etiology diagnosis.<n>COME injects multi-center acquisition semantics, source identifiers, and modality indicators as heterogeneity-aware embeddings into a unified Transformer architecture for scale-up training.<n>Our method achieves state-of-the-art in-domain performance with a mean macro-averaged AUC of 85.62% and a 4.29-point gain over the strongest baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T04:26:47Z)
• Beyond Sally-Anne: Evaluating Theory of Mind in LLMs using Epistemic Schelling Points [0.8703469130213444]
  We introduce the Epistemic Asymmetry Schelling Task (EAST), a two-player dialogue game designed to benchmark robust ToM abilities.<n>We evaluate whether models can robustly apply ToM to achieve coordination.<n>Our results reveal a significant capability gap in functional social reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T10:27:22Z)
• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• On the Hidden Costs of Counterfactual Knowledge Training in LLM Unlearning [65.58724910851039]
  Counterfactual tuning (CFT) has emerged as a promising paradigm for Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning by training models.<n>We find that this paradigm still underperforms other paradigms in some aspects.<n>We introduce RWKU+, an extended benchmark equipped with novel trade-off metrics and gradient-level diagnostic tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T14:34:14Z)
• Compliance versus Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models [46.26628756478016]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data.<n>We show that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes.<n>Our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T22:55:40Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• EvalQReason: A Framework for Step-Level Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models [0.8399688944263844]
  We present EvalQReason, a framework that quantifies LLM reasoning quality through step-level probability distribution analysis.<n>The framework introduces two complementary algorithms: Consecutive Step Divergence (CSD), which measures local coherence between adjacent reasoning steps, and Step-to-Final Convergence (SFC), which assesses global alignment with final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T16:32:40Z)
• OncoReason: Structuring Clinical Reasoning in LLMs for Robust and Interpretable Survival Prediction [2.904892426557913]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in biomedical NLP.<n>We present a unified, multi-task learning framework that aligns autoregressive LLMs with clinical reasoning for outcome prediction.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of reasoning-aware alignment in multi-task clinical modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T13:35:12Z)
• Coherent Multimodal Reasoning with Iterative Self-Evaluation for Vision-Language Models [4.064135211977999]
  Large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (LVLMs) struggle with complex, multi-step, cross-modal common sense reasoning tasks.<n>We propose the Coherent Multimodal Reasoning Framework (CMRF), a novel approach that enhances LVLMs' common sense reasoning capabilities.<n>CMRF mimics human problem-solving by decomposing complex queries, generating step-by-step inferences, and self-correcting errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T20:33:58Z)
• Learning to Focus: Causal Attention Distillation via Gradient-Guided Token Pruning [62.23671919314693]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant improvements in contextual understanding.<n>However, their ability to attend to truly critical information during long-context reasoning and generation still falls behind the pace.<n>We introduce a two-stage framework called Learning to Focus (LeaF) to mitigate confounding factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T15:16:39Z)
• Zero-Shot Event Causality Identification via Multi-source Evidence Fuzzy Aggregation with Large Language Models [11.541829239773643]
  Event Causality Identification (ECI) aims to detect causal relationships between events in textual contexts.<n>Existing ECI models predominantly rely on supervised methodologies, suffering from dependence on large-scale annotated data.<n>We propose MEFA, a novel zero-shot framework based on Multi-source Evidence Fuzzy Aggregation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T01:56:05Z)
• Hybrid Latent Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning [51.06635386903026]
  We explore latent reasoning by leveraging the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) via reinforcement learning (RL)<n>We introduce hybrid reasoning policy optimization (HRPO), an RL-based hybrid latent reasoning approach that integrates prior hidden states into sampled tokens with a learnable gating mechanism.<n>HRPO-trained LLMs remain interpretable and exhibit intriguing behaviors like cross-lingual patterns and shorter completion lengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T01:26:16Z)
• The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning [56.574829311863446]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely recognized for its ability to enhance reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs)<n>We demonstrate that CoT and its reasoning variants consistently underperform direct answering across varying model scales and benchmark complexities.<n>Our analysis uncovers a fundamental hybrid mechanism of explicit-implicit reasoning driving CoT's performance in pattern-based ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T13:51:06Z)
• Exploring LLM Reasoning Through Controlled Prompt Variations [0.9217021281095907]
  We evaluate how well state-of-the-art models maintain logical consistency and correctness when confronted with four categories of prompt perturbations. Our experiments, conducted on thirteen open-source and closed-source LLMs, reveal that introducing irrelevant context within the model's context window significantly degrades performance. Certain perturbations inadvertently trigger chain-of-thought-like reasoning behaviors, even without explicit prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T20:18:50Z)
• Collective Reasoning Among LLMs A Framework for Answer Validation Without Ground Truth [0.0]
  This study explores how inter-model consensus enhances response reliability and serves as a proxy for assessing the quality of generated questions. We present a collaborative framework where multiple large language models, namely GPT-4-0125-preview, Meta-LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.5-Flash, work together to generate and respond to complex PhD-level probability questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T06:20:52Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment. We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews. Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Improving Domain Generalization in Self-supervised Monocular Depth Estimation via Stabilized Adversarial Training [61.35809887986553]
  We propose a general adversarial training framework, named Stabilized Conflict-optimization Adversarial Training (SCAT) SCAT integrates adversarial data augmentation into self-supervised MDE methods to achieve a balance between stability and generalization. Experiments on five benchmarks demonstrate that SCAT can achieve state-of-the-art performance and significantly improve the generalization capability of existing self-supervised MDE methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T15:06:57Z)
• Inter Observer Variability Assessment through Ordered Weighted Belief Divergence Measure in MAGDM Application to the Ensemble Classifier Feature Fusion [1.3586572110652486]
  A large number of multi-attribute group decisionmaking (MAGDM) have been widely introduced to obtain consensus results. This study aims to propose an Evidential MAGDM method by assessing the inter-observational variability and handling uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T00:53:00Z)
• Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency [18.24350001344488]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks, aided by techniques like chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. We investigate CoT reasoning in LLMs through the lens of internal representations. We propose a new approach to calibrate CoT reasoning by up-weighting reasoning paths with high internal consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T02:44:12Z)
• A General Causal Inference Framework for Cross-Sectional Observational Data [0.4972323953932129]
  General Causal Inference (GCI) framework specifically designed for cross-sectional observational data. This paper proposes a GCI framework specifically designed for cross-sectional observational data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T14:26:27Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Discovery of the Hidden World with Large Language Models [95.58823685009727]
  This paper presents Causal representatiOn AssistanT (COAT) that introduces large language models (LLMs) to bridge the gap. LLMs are trained on massive observations of the world and have demonstrated great capability in extracting key information from unstructured data. COAT also adopts CDs to find causal relations among the identified variables as well as to provide feedback to LLMs to iteratively refine the proposed factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T12:18:54Z)
• SSL Framework for Causal Inconsistency between Structures and Representations [23.035761299444953]
  Cross-pollination of deep learning and causal discovery has catalyzed a burgeoning field of research seeking to elucidate causal relationships within non-statistical data forms like images, videos, and text. We theoretically develop intervention strategies suitable for indefinite data and derive causal consistency condition (CCC) CCC could potentially play an influential role in various fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T08:29:49Z)
• Causal Representation Learning Made Identifiable by Grouping of Observational Variables [8.157856010838382]
  Causal Representation Learning aims to learn a causal model for hidden features in a data-driven manner. Here, we show identifiability based on novel, weak constraints. We also propose a novel self-supervised estimation framework consistent with the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T10:38:02Z)
• Identifiable Latent Polynomial Causal Models Through the Lens of Change [82.14087963690561]
  Causal representation learning aims to unveil latent high-level causal representations from observed low-level data. One of its primary tasks is to provide reliable assurance of identifying these latent causal models, known as identifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T07:46:10Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [60.244412212130264]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models. Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Counterfactual Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Training Deep Networks [83.44219640437657]
  Deep learning models are prone to learning spurious correlations that should not be learned as predictive clues. We propose a causality-based training framework to reduce the spurious correlations caused by observable confounders. We conduct experiments on two real-world tasks: Natural Language Inference (NLI) and Image Captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T17:47:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.