Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13770v1
• Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 23:06:00 GMT
• Title: Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference
• Authors: Jin Du, Li Chen, Xun Xian, An Luo, Fangqiao Tian, Ganghua Wang, Charles Doss, Xiaotong Shen, Jie Ding,
• Abstract summary: It remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can handle rigorous and trustworthy statistical causal inference.<n>The CausalPitfalls benchmark provides essential guidance and quantitative metrics to advance the development of trustworthy causal reasoning systems.
• Score: 16.706959860667133
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reliable causal inference is essential for making decisions in high-stakes areas like medicine, economics, and public policy. However, it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can handle rigorous and trustworthy statistical causal inference. Current benchmarks usually involve simplified tasks. For example, these tasks might only ask LLMs to identify semantic causal relationships or draw conclusions directly from raw data. As a result, models may overlook important statistical pitfalls, such as Simpson's paradox or selection bias. This oversight limits the applicability of LLMs in the real world. To address these limitations, we propose CausalPitfalls, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the capability of LLMs in overcoming common causal inference pitfalls. Our benchmark features structured challenges across multiple difficulty levels, each paired with grading rubrics. This approach allows us to quantitatively measure both causal reasoning capabilities and the reliability of LLMs' responses. We evaluate models using two protocols: (1) direct prompting, which assesses intrinsic causal reasoning, and (2) code-assisted prompting, where models generate executable code for explicit statistical analysis. Additionally, we validate the effectiveness of this judge by comparing its scoring with assessments from human experts. Our results reveal significant limitations in current LLMs when performing statistical causal inference. The CausalPitfalls benchmark provides essential guidance and quantitative metrics to advance the development of trustworthy causal reasoning systems.

Related papers

• Causal Prompting for Implicit Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models [21.39152516811571]
  Implicit Sentiment Analysis (ISA) aims to infer sentiment that is implied rather than explicitly stated.<n>Recent prompting-based methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in ISA.<n>We propose CAPITAL, a causal prompting framework that incorporates front-door adjustment into CoT reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T03:01:09Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• CounterBench: A Benchmark for Counterfactuals Reasoning in Large Language Models [5.409370027524351]
  We evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in counterfactual reasoning.<n>We introduce a new benchmark dataset, CounterBench, comprising 1K counterfactual reasoning questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T06:19:37Z)
• A Critical Review of Causal Reasoning Benchmarks for Large Language Models [2.1311710788645617]
  We present a comprehensive overview of LLM benchmarks for causality. We derive a set of criteria that a useful benchmark or set of benchmarks should aim to satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T20:11:51Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation and Detection [31.452161594896978]
  We investigate self-contradictory (Self-Contra) reasoning, where the model reasoning does not support its answers. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves in reasoning tasks involving contextual information understanding or commonsense. We find that GPT-4 can detect Self-Contra with a 52.2% F1 score, much lower compared to 66.7% for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:22:17Z)
• Benchmarking Causal Study to Interpret Large Language Models for Source Code [6.301373791541809]
  This paper introduces a benchmarking strategy named Galeras comprised of curated testbeds for three SE tasks. We illustrate the insights of our benchmarking strategy by conducting a case study on the performance of ChatGPT under distinct prompt engineering methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T20:32:12Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)

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.