Towards a Universal Causal Reasoner

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24873v1
• Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 05:28:39 GMT
• Title: Towards a Universal Causal Reasoner
• Abstract summary: We propose UniCo, a data generation framework that addresses 18 causal query types across Pearl's Causal Ladder.<n>UniCo grounds answers with exact causal inference and filters cases with reasoning shortcuts.<n>We show that UniCo-trained models consistently display more faithful reasoning traces, outperforming the base models by an average of 20.2% in faithfulness metrics.
• Score: 26.784442577804086
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the importance of causal reasoning, training LLMs to reason causally remains underexplored. Existing data efforts mostly focus on benchmarking LLMs on specific aspects of causality, making them less suitable for training generalizable causal reasoners. To address this, we propose UniCo, a data generation framework that both (1) addresses 18 causal query types across Pearl's Causal Ladder and (2) translates natively symbolic examples into code and natural language forms to simulate real-world use cases where causal terms are not explicitly specified. To ensure data quality, UniCo grounds answers with exact causal inference and filters cases with reasoning shortcuts. Upon supervised finetuning with 66.6K UniCo-generated instances, Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B and Olmo-3-7B-Instruct achieve an average of 22.9% improvements across all 18 in-distribution query types, and 8.1% over state-of-the-art causal data generation frameworks on 7 established causal benchmarks outside the training distribution. More importantly, in real-world medical understanding, legal decision, and tabular reasoning, UniCo-trained models consistently display more faithful reasoning traces, outperforming the base models by an average of 20.2% in faithfulness metrics. These suggest that causality-centered training not only strengthens causal reasoning, but also equips LLMs with a causal mindset in general reasoning tasks.

Related papers

• Causal Scaffolding for Physical Reasoning: A Benchmark for Causally-Informed Physical World Understanding in VLMs [49.55219052565761]
  CausalPhys is a benchmark of over 3,000 carefully curated video- and image-based questions spanning four domains: Perception, Anticipation, Intervention, and Goal Orientation.<n>Each question is paired with an expert-annotated causal graph capturing object-attribute-event dependencies, enabling interpretable and fine-grained evaluation of causal understanding.<n>Building on this, we formulate a causal-graph-grounded metric that quantitatively measures how well a model's chain-of-thought reasoning aligns with the correct causal relations.<n>We propose Causal Rationale-informed Fine-Tuning (CRFT), which explicitly
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T10:07:05Z)
• Seirênes: Adversarial Self-Play with Evolving Distractions for LLM Reasoning [56.48520300004217]
  We present Seirnes, a self-play RL framework that transforms contextual interference into an internal training signal.<n>A single model is trained to both construct plausible yet distracting contexts that expose its own reasoning blind spots.<n>By pitting these competing objectives against each other, Seirnes compels the model to move beyond superficial pattern matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T06:58:35Z)
• NoisyCausal: A Benchmark for Evaluating Causal Reasoning Under Structured Noise [33.130357221784166]
  Causal reasoning in natural language requires identifying relevant variables, understanding their interactions, and reasoning about effects and interventions.<n>We introduce NoisyCausal, a new benchmark designed to evaluate causal reasoning under structured noise.<n>We propose a modular reasoning framework that combines LLMs with explicit causal structure to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T21:26:01Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating and Enhancing the Vulnerability Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [15.849480549367684]
  We propose DAGVul, a novel framework that models vulnerability reasoning as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) generation task.<n>By further introducing Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), we align model reasoning trace with program-intrinsic logic.<n>Our framework improves the reasoning F1-score by an average of 18.9% over all the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T13:19:45Z)
• Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage? [62.17959154852391]
  Causal reasoning capability is critical in advancing large language models toward strong artificial intelligence.<n>We show that large language models (LLMs) are only capable of performing shallow (level-1) causal reasoning.<n>We propose G2-Reasoner, a method that incorporates general knowledge and goal-oriented prompts into LLMs' causal reasoning processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T13:11:01Z)
• ExpliCa: Evaluating Explicit Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [75.05436691700572]
  We introduce ExpliCa, a new dataset for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in explicit causal reasoning.<n>We tested seven commercial and open-source LLMs on ExpliCa through prompting and perplexity-based metrics.<n>Surprisingly, models tend to confound temporal relations with causal ones, and their performance is also strongly influenced by the linguistic order of the events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T14:23:14Z)
• 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)
• RATIONALYST: Mining Implicit Rationales for Process Supervision of Reasoning [41.9992614617405]
  We introduce RATIONALYST, a model for process-supervision of reasoning based on pre-training.<n>We extract 79k rationales from web-scale unlabelled dataset (the Pile) and a combination of reasoning datasets with minimal human intervention.<n>Fine-tuned from LLaMa-3-8B, RATIONALYST improves the accuracy of reasoning by an average of 3.9% on 7 representative reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T20:05:51Z)
• UniCausal: Unified Benchmark and Repository for Causal Text Mining [7.402967063220846]
  We propose UniCausal, a unified benchmark for causal text mining across three tasks. We consolidate and align annotations of six high quality, mainly human-annotated, corpora. To create an initial benchmark, we fine-tuned BERT pre-trained language models to each task, achieving 70.10% Binary F1, 52.42% Macro F1, and 84.68% Binary F1 scores respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-19T06:14:05Z)

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.