Executable Counterfactuals: Improving LLMs' Causal Reasoning Through Code

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01539v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 00:26:35 GMT
• Title: Executable Counterfactuals: Improving LLMs' Causal Reasoning Through Code
• Authors: Aniket Vashishtha, Qirun Dai, Hongyuan Mei, Amit Sharma, Chenhao Tan, Hao Peng,
• Abstract summary: We introduce executable counterfactuals, a framework that operationalizes causal reasoning through code and math problems.<n>Our results reveal substantial drop in accuracy (25-40%) from interventional to counterfactual reasoning for SOTA models like o4-mini and Claude-4-Sonnet.<n>We also test whether a model trained on code would generalize to counterfactual math word problems.
• Score: 29.382261465478248
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual reasoning, a hallmark of intelligence, consists of three steps: inferring latent variables from observations (abduction), constructing alternatives (interventions), and predicting their outcomes (prediction). This skill is essential for advancing LLMs' causal understanding and expanding their applications in high-stakes domains such as scientific research. However, existing efforts in assessing LLM's counterfactual reasoning capabilities tend to skip the abduction step, effectively reducing to interventional reasoning and leading to overestimation of LLM performance. To address this, we introduce executable counterfactuals, a novel framework that operationalizes causal reasoning through code and math problems. Our framework explicitly requires all three steps of counterfactual reasoning and enables scalable synthetic data creation with varying difficulty, creating a frontier for evaluating and improving LLM's reasoning. Our results reveal substantial drop in accuracy (25-40%) from interventional to counterfactual reasoning for SOTA models like o4-mini and Claude-4-Sonnet. To address this gap, we construct a training set comprising counterfactual code problems having if-else condition and test on out-of-domain code structures (e.g. having while-loop); we also test whether a model trained on code would generalize to counterfactual math word problems. While supervised finetuning on stronger models' reasoning traces improves in-domain performance of Qwen models, it leads to a decrease in accuracy on OOD tasks such as counterfactual math problems. In contrast, reinforcement learning induces the core cognitive behaviors and generalizes to new domains, yielding gains over the base model on both code (improvement of 1.5x-2x) and math problems. Analysis of the reasoning traces reinforces these findings and highlights the promise of RL for improving LLMs' counterfactual reasoning.

Related papers

• 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)
• Enhancing Mathematical Problem Solving in LLMs through Execution-Driven Reasoning Augmentation [18.636244209466266]
  Iteratively Improved Program Construction (IIPC) is a reasoning method that iteratively refines programmatic reasoning chains and combines execution feedback with the native Chain-of-thought abilities of the base LLM.<n>IIPC surpasses competing approaches in the majority of reasoning benchmarks on multiple base LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T19:13:31Z)
• An Empirical Study of Reasoning Steps in Thinking Code LLMs [8.653365851909745]
  Thinking Large Language Models generate explicit intermediate reasoning traces before final answers.<n>This study examines the reasoning process and quality of thinking LLMs for code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-08T06:18:48Z)
• Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models [6.312798900093575]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning.<n>This paper focuses on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking.<n>We introduce the Overthinking Score, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-05T12:31:17Z)
• Evaluating Intermediate Reasoning of Code-Assisted Large Language Models for Mathematics [15.695635219034328]
  We conduct an in-depth analysis of code-assisted LLMs generated programs in response to math reasoning tasks.<n>Our findings show that the capabilities of models significantly impact the logic implemented to solve the problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T15:34:24Z)
• Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models [49.61246073215651]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex tasks.<n>Recent advancements in OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1 have further improved performance in System-2 reasoning domains.<n>However, they also introduce significant computational overhead due to verbose and redundant outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:59:38Z)
• Unveiling the Magic of Code Reasoning through Hypothesis Decomposition and Amendment [54.62926010621013]
  We introduce a novel task, code reasoning, to provide a new perspective for the reasoning abilities of large language models.<n>We summarize three meta-benchmarks based on established forms of logical reasoning, and instantiate these into eight specific benchmark tasks.<n>We present a new pathway exploration pipeline inspired by human intricate problem-solving methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T10:39:58Z)
• 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)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solvers [68.77382332826167]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:26:14Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• Are LLMs Rigorous Logical Reasoner? Empowering Natural Language Proof Generation with Contrastive Stepwise Decoding [10.421832675327712]
  We introduce contrastive decoding to stepwise proof generation, making use of negative reasoning paths to strengthen the model's capacity for logical deduction.<n> Experiments on EntailmentBank underscore the success of our method in augmenting the proof planning abilities of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T05:12:49Z)
• Fill in the Blank: Exploring and Enhancing LLM Capabilities for Backward Reasoning in Math Word Problems [17.80128896525717]
  backward reasoning is relatively unexplored. backward reasoning can be seen as the ''inverse'' of forward reasoning. We propose variations of three different forward reasoning strategies to improve performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T12:03:06Z)

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.