CausalEval: Towards Better Causal Reasoning in Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16676v4
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:16:29 GMT
- Title: CausalEval: Towards Better Causal Reasoning in Language Models
- Authors: Longxuan Yu, Delin Chen, Siheng Xiong, Qingyang Wu, Qingzhen Liu, Dawei Li, Zhikai Chen, Xiaoze Liu, Liangming Pan,
- Abstract summary: Causal reasoning (CR) is a crucial aspect of intelligence, essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding the world.<n>While language models (LMs) can generate rationales for their outputs, their ability to reliably perform causal reasoning remains uncertain.<n>We introduce CausalEval, a review of research aimed at enhancing LMs for causal reasoning.
- Score: 16.55801836321059
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Causal reasoning (CR) is a crucial aspect of intelligence, essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding the world. While language models (LMs) can generate rationales for their outputs, their ability to reliably perform causal reasoning remains uncertain, often falling short in tasks requiring a deep understanding of causality. In this paper, we introduce CausalEval, a comprehensive review of research aimed at enhancing LMs for causal reasoning, coupled with an empirical evaluation of current models and methods. We categorize existing methods based on the role of LMs: either as reasoning engines or as helpers providing knowledge or data to traditional CR methods, followed by a detailed discussion of methodologies in each category. We then assess the performance of current LMs and various enhancement methods on a range of causal reasoning tasks, providing key findings and in-depth analysis. Finally, we present insights from current studies and highlight promising directions for future research. We aim for this work to serve as a comprehensive resource, fostering further advancements in causal reasoning with LMs.
Related papers
- A Survey on Enhancing Causal Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [15.602788561902038]
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown remarkable performance in language tasks and beyond.
LLMs still face challenges in handling tasks that require robust causal reasoning ability, such as health-care and economic analysis.
This paper systematically reviews literature on how to strengthen LLMs' causal reasoning ability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-12T12:20:31Z) - LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Logical Inference in Large Language Model Reasoning [49.58786377307728]
This paper adopts an exploratory approach by introducing a controlled evaluation environment for analogical reasoning.
We analyze the comparative dynamics of inductive, abductive, and deductive inference pipelines.
We investigate advanced paradigms such as hypothesis selection, verification, and refinement, revealing their potential to scale up logical inference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-16T15:54:53Z) - Language Agents Meet Causality -- Bridging LLMs and Causal World Models [50.79984529172807]
We propose a framework that integrates causal representation learning with large language models.
This framework learns a causal world model, with causal variables linked to natural language expressions.
We evaluate the framework on causal inference and planning tasks across temporal scales and environmental complexities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-25T18:36:37Z) - Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question.
To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA)
Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z) - Causal Inference with Large Language Model: A Survey [5.651037052334014]
Causal inference has been a pivotal challenge across diverse domains such as medicine and economics.
Recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP) have introduced promising opportunities for traditional causal inference tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-15T18:43:11Z) - Reasoning with Large Language Models, a Survey [2.831296564800826]
This paper reviews the rapidly expanding field of prompt-based reasoning with LLMs.
Our taxonomy identifies different ways to generate, evaluate, and control multi-step reasoning.
We find that self-improvement, self-reflection, and some meta abilities of the reasoning processes are possible through the judicious use of prompts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-16T08:49:35Z) - 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) - Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey [25.732397636695882]
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning.
Despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-02T11:46:31Z) - How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning? [31.86489714330338]
Chain-of-thought (CoT) emerges as a promising technique to elicit reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs)
In this paper, we diagnose the underlying mechanism by comparing the reasoning process of LLMs with humans.
Our empirical study reveals that LLMs often deviate from a causal chain, resulting in spurious correlations and potential consistency errors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-25T10:13:04Z) - Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans.
Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z) - Is Knowledge All Large Language Models Needed for Causal Reasoning? [11.476877330365664]
This paper explores the causal reasoning of large language models (LLMs) to enhance their interpretability and reliability in advancing artificial intelligence.
We propose a novel causal attribution model that utilizes do-operators" for constructing counterfactual scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-30T04:51:46Z) - A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning.
Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z) - From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for
Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions.
Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z) - Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems.
LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning.
We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z) - Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
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) - Causal Reasoning and Large Language Models: Opening a New Frontier for Causality [29.433401785920065]
Large language models (LLMs) can generate causal arguments with high probability.
LLMs may be used by human domain experts to save effort in setting up a causal analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-28T19:00:43Z) - Search-in-the-Chain: Interactively Enhancing Large Language Models with
Search for Knowledge-intensive Tasks [121.74957524305283]
This paper proposes a novel framework named textbfSearch-in-the-Chain (SearChain) for the interaction between Information Retrieval (IR) and Large Language Model (LLM)
Experiments show that SearChain outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on complex knowledge-intensive tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-28T10:15:25Z) - Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey [11.35055307348939]
It is not yet clear to what extent large language models (LLMs) are capable of reasoning.
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-20T16:29:03Z)
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.