CRAwDAD: Causal Reasoning Augmentation with Dual-Agent Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22854v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 03:19:35 GMT
• Title: CRAwDAD: Causal Reasoning Augmentation with Dual-Agent Debate
• Authors: Finn G. Vamosi, Nils D. Forkert,
• Abstract summary: We develop a dual-agent debate framework for causal inference.<n>Agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic.<n>We show that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents.
• Score: 3.2852123901391077
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.

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)
• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Disagreements in Reasoning: How a Model's Thinking Process Dictates Persuasion in Multi-Agent Systems [49.69773210844221]
  This paper challenges the prevailing hypothesis that persuasive efficacy is primarily a function of model scale.<n>Through a series of multi-agent persuasion experiments, we uncover a fundamental trade-off we term the Persuasion Duality.<n>Our findings reveal that the reasoning process in LRMs exhibits significantly greater resistance to persuasion, maintaining their initial beliefs more robustly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T12:03:10Z)
• Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Understanding Failure Modes in Multi-Agent Debate [2.3027211055417283]
  We show that debate can lead to a decrease in accuracy over time.<n>Our analysis reveals that models frequently shift from correct to incorrect answers in response to peer reasoning.<n>These results highlight important failure modes in the exchange of reasons during multi-agent debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T13:47:38Z)
• Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know? [7.423494663010787]
  Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks.<n>Like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect.<n>Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T21:46:42Z)
• CLEAR-3K: Assessing Causal Explanatory Capabilities in Language Models [3.137688620241855]
  We introduce CLEAR-3K, a dataset of 3,000 assertion-reasoning questions designed to evaluate whether language models can determine if one statement causally explains another.<n>Each question present an assertion-reason pair and challenge language models to distinguish between semantic relatedness and genuine causal explanatory relationships.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T17:35:36Z)
• Think or Not? Exploring Thinking Efficiency in Large Reasoning Models via an Information-Theoretic Lens [51.90059610606049]
  This paper revisits the efficiency of such reasoning processes through an information-theoretic lens.<n>We propose two metrics, InfoBias and InfoGain, to quantify divergence from ideal reasoning paths and stepwise information contribution.<n>Motivated by these findings, we introduce an entropy-based Adaptive Think strategy that dynamically halts reasoning once confidence is sufficiently high.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:38:56Z)
• The First Impression Problem: Internal Bias Triggers Overthinking in Reasoning Models [38.11937119873932]
  Reasoning models often exhibit overthinking, characterized by redundant reasoning steps.<n>We identify internal bias elicited by the input question as a key trigger of such behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T09:35:52Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• 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)
• 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.<n>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)

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.