Language Agents Mirror Human Causal Reasoning Biases. How Can We Help Them Think Like Scientists?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09614v1
• Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 17:59:35 GMT
• Title: Language Agents Mirror Human Causal Reasoning Biases. How Can We Help Them Think Like Scientists?
• Authors: Anthony GX-Chen, Dongyan Lin, Mandana Samiei, Doina Precup, Blake A. Richards, Rob Fergus, Kenneth Marino,
• Abstract summary: Language model (LM) agents are increasingly used as autonomous decision-makers.<n>We examine LMs' ability to explore and infer causal relationships using the "Blicket Test" paradigm from developmental psychology.<n>We find that LMs reliably infer the common, intuitive disjunctive causal relationships but systematically struggle with the unusual, yet equally (or sometimes even more) evidenced conjunctive ones.<n>An analogous bias appears in human adults, suggesting that LMs may have inherited deep-seated reasonings from their training data.
• Score: 44.565305564838035
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Language model (LM) agents are increasingly used as autonomous decision-makers who need to actively gather information to guide their decisions. A crucial cognitive skill for such agents is the efficient exploration and understanding of the causal structure of the world -- key to robust, scientifically grounded reasoning. Yet, it remains unclear whether LMs possess this capability or exhibit systematic biases leading to erroneous conclusions. In this work, we examine LMs' ability to explore and infer causal relationships, using the well-established "Blicket Test" paradigm from developmental psychology. We find that LMs reliably infer the common, intuitive disjunctive causal relationships but systematically struggle with the unusual, yet equally (or sometimes even more) evidenced conjunctive ones. This "disjunctive bias" persists across model families, sizes, and prompting strategies, and performance further declines as task complexity increases. Interestingly, an analogous bias appears in human adults, suggesting that LMs may have inherited deep-seated reasoning heuristics from their training data. To this end, we quantify similarities between LMs and humans, finding that LMs exhibit adult-like inference profiles (but not children-like). Finally, we propose a test-time sampling method which explicitly samples and eliminates hypotheses about causal relationships from the LM. This scalable approach significantly reduces the disjunctive bias and moves LMs closer to the goal of scientific, causally rigorous reasoning.

Related papers

• Using AI to replicate human experimental results: a motion study [0.11838866556981258]
  This paper explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) as reliable analytical tools in linguistic research.<n>It focuses on the emergence of affective meanings in temporal expressions involving manner-of-motion verbs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T14:47:01Z)
• Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internally [44.996518290660816]
  Recent cognitive modeling studies have reported that larger language models (LMs) exhibit a poorer fit to human reading behavior.<n>We argue that prior conclusions were skewed by an exclusive focus on the final layers of LMs.<n>Our analysis reveals that next-word probabilities derived from internal layers of larger LMs align with human sentence processing data as well as, or better than, those from smaller LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:48:32Z)
• Position: Theory of Mind Benchmarks are Broken for Large Language Models [41.832853832803046]
  This position paper argues that the majority of theory of mind benchmarks are broken because of their inability to directly test how large language models adapt to new partners.<n>We call this functional theory of mind: the ability to adapt to agents in-context following a rational response to predictions about their behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T16:30:12Z)
• Do Large Language Models Show Biases in Causal Learning? [3.0264418764647605]
  Causal learning is the cognitive process of developing the capability of making causal inferences based on available information.<n>This research investigates whether large language models (LLMs) develop causal illusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T19:03:48Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the interaction between world knowledge and logical reasoning.<n>We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial generalizations.<n>We show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• Hypothesizing Missing Causal Variables with LLMs [55.28678224020973]
  We formulate a novel task where the input is a partial causal graph with missing variables, and the output is a hypothesis about the missing variables to complete the partial graph. We show the strong ability of LLMs to hypothesize the mediation variables between a cause and its effect. We also observe surprising results where some of the open-source models outperform the closed GPT-4 model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T10:37:44Z)
• How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning? [31.86489714330338]
  Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We use causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T10:13:04Z)
• Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty [53.336235704123915]
  We investigate how LMs incorporate confidence in responses via natural language and how downstream users behave in response to LM-articulated uncertainties. We find that LMs are reluctant to express uncertainties when answering questions even when they produce incorrect responses. We test the risks of LM overconfidence by conducting human experiments and show that users rely heavily on LM generations. Lastly, we investigate the preference-annotated datasets used in post training alignment and find that humans are biased against texts with uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T18:03:30Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• To do or not to do: finding causal relations in smart homes [2.064612766965483]
  This paper introduces a new way to learn causal models from a mixture of experiments on the environment and observational data. The core of our method is the use of selected interventions, especially our learning takes into account the variables where it is impossible to intervene. We use our method on a smart home simulation, a use case where knowing causal relations pave the way towards explainable systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T22:36:04Z)
• ACRE: Abstract Causal REasoning Beyond Covariation [90.99059920286484]
  We introduce the Abstract Causal REasoning dataset for systematic evaluation of current vision systems in causal induction. Motivated by the stream of research on causal discovery in Blicket experiments, we query a visual reasoning system with the following four types of questions in either an independent scenario or an interventional scenario. We notice that pure neural models tend towards an associative strategy under their chance-level performance, whereas neuro-symbolic combinations struggle in backward-blocking reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-26T02:42:38Z)

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.