Causal Prompting for Implicit Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00389v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 03:01:09 GMT
• Title: Causal Prompting for Implicit Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models
• Authors: Jing Ren, Wenhao Zhou, Bowen Li, Mujie Liu, Nguyen Linh Dan Le, Jiade Cen, Liping Chen, Ziqi Xu, Xiwei Xu, Xiaodong Li,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 21.39152516811571
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Implicit Sentiment Analysis (ISA) aims to infer sentiment that is implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring models to perform deeper reasoning over subtle contextual cues. While recent prompting-based methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in ISA, they often rely on majority voting over chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning paths without evaluating their causal validity, making them susceptible to internal biases and spurious correlations. To address this challenge, we propose CAPITAL, a causal prompting framework that incorporates front-door adjustment into CoT reasoning. CAPITAL decomposes the overall causal effect into two components: the influence of the input prompt on the reasoning chains, and the impact of those chains on the final output. These components are estimated using encoder-based clustering and the NWGM approximation, with a contrastive learning objective used to better align the encoder's representation with the LLM's reasoning space. Experiments on benchmark ISA datasets with three LLMs demonstrate that CAPITAL consistently outperforms strong prompting baselines in both accuracy and robustness, particularly under adversarial conditions. This work offers a principled approach to integrating causal inference into LLM prompting and highlights its benefits for bias-aware sentiment reasoning. The source code and case study are available at: https://github.com/whZ62/CAPITAL.

Related papers

• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference [16.706959860667133]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T23:06:00Z)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning.<n>This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation.<n>We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• 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)
• Causal Prompting: Debiasing Large Language Model Prompting based on Front-Door Adjustment [32.12998469814097]
  A novel causal prompting method based on front-door adjustment is proposed to effectively mitigate Large Language Models (LLMs) biases.<n> Experimental results show that the proposed causal prompting approach achieves excellent performance across seven natural language processing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T07:47:34Z)
• Cause and Effect: Can Large Language Models Truly Understand Causality? [1.2334534968968969]
  This research proposes a novel architecture called Context Aware Reasoning Enhancement with Counterfactual Analysis(CARE CA) framework. The proposed framework incorporates an explicit causal detection module with ConceptNet and counterfactual statements, as well as implicit causal detection through Large Language Models. The knowledge from ConceptNet enhances the performance of multiple causal reasoning tasks such as causal discovery, causal identification and counterfactual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T08:02:14Z)
• Large Language Models as an Indirect Reasoner: Contrapositive and Contradiction for Automated Reasoning [74.90592233107712]
  We propose a Direct-Indirect Reasoning (DIR) method, which considers Direct Reasoning (DR) and Indirect Reasoning (IR) as multiple parallel reasoning paths that are merged to derive the final answer.<n>Our DIR method is simple yet effective and can be straightforwardly integrated with existing variants of CoT methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:41:12Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers [60.009969929857704]
  Logical reasoning is an important task for artificial intelligence with potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. In this work, we reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC. We observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:58:40Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)

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.