From Causal Plausibility to Causal Reliability: Evaluating LLMs as Calibrated Direct Causal-Edge Classifiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23660v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:55:47 GMT
• Title: From Causal Plausibility to Causal Reliability: Evaluating LLMs as Calibrated Direct Causal-Edge Classifiers
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide prior causal knowledge for structural causal discovery.<n>We evaluate 12 instruction-tuned open-weight models across six benchmark causal graphs, five prompting strategies, and four confidence sources.<n>Our results suggest LLMs are better viewed as sources of externally validated soft causal priors than as direct evidence of causal structure.
• Score: 15.44881677475537
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide prior causal knowledge for structural causal discovery, yet whether their direct-edge judgments and confidence can be trusted remains unclear. We systematically evaluate 12 instruction-tuned open-weight models across six benchmark causal graphs, five prompting strategies, and four confidence sources: verbalized, logit-based, cross-prompt agreement, and cross-model agreement. Under our language-only pairwise protocol, our evaluation yields three key findings. (i) LLM-based causal judgments are strongly recall-dominant: models predict overly dense graphs with many false-positive edges, while prompting mainly shifts the precision-recall trade-off rather than resolving overprediction. Gains from model scale diminish on the largest graphs and do not eliminate miscalibration. (ii) LLMs often capture causal relatedness without reliably identifying directness or orientation. Relative to published reference graphs, models misclassify 40.0% of indirect and 36.0% of reversed non-edges as direct edges, versus 28.2% of other non-edges. Moreover, 80.8% and 84.6% of these false positives receive verbalized confidence of at least 80%, revealing substantial overconfidence in structurally incorrect predictions. (iii) Conventional confidence estimates are unreliable, whereas agreement offers a more promising signal. Logit-based confidence frequently collapses near 1.0 regardless of correctness, while cross-prompt and cross-model agreement achieve better mean calibration and discrimination, though their advantages are not statistically significant after Holm correction. A benchmark-familiarity audit further identifies potential familiarity in five model-dataset pairs, all involving AsiaM. Overall, our results suggest LLMs are better viewed as sources of externally validated soft causal priors than as direct evidence of causal structure.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• HalluPrism: When Multimodal Uncertainty Should Diagnose, Not Decide [18.50218795316691]
  We propose HalluPrism, a behavioral diagnostic that re-runs an answer after visual degradation, blank-image replacement, and grounding or relation checks.<n>These targeted probes yield a signature over visual-perturbation sensitivity, image-removal confidence retention, and grounding/relation-probe instability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-29T11:06:37Z)
• LLM Doesn't Know What It Doesn't Know: Detecting Epistemic Blind Spots via Cross-Model Attribution Divergence on Clinical Tabular Data [2.1443570696048906]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data.<n>We compare Qwen 2.5 7B and XGBoost on a prediction task via attribution divergence analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T18:49:44Z)
• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• Discovery of Hidden Miscalibration Regimes [52.452902154360565]
  Models may be systematically overconfident on some kinds of inputs and underconfident on others.<n>We define the corresponding miscalibration field and propose a diagnostic framework for estimating it.<n>Our approach learns a calibration-aware representation of the input space and estimates signed local miscalibration by kernel smoothing in the learned geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T13:07:50Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• Know When You're Wrong: Aligning Confidence with Correctness for LLM Error Detection [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in critical decision-making systems.<n>We introduce a normalized confidence score based on output anchor token probabilities.<n>This enables direct detection of errors and hallucinations with minimal overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T07:05:12Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• Confidence-Aware Routing for Large Language Model Reliability Enhancement: A Multi-Signal Approach to Pre-Generation Hallucination Mitigation [0.0]
  Large Language Models suffer from hallucination, generating plausible yet factually incorrect content.<n>Current mitigation strategies focus on post-generation correction, which is computationally expensive and fails to prevent unreliable content generation.<n>We propose a confidence-aware routing system that proactively assesses model uncertainty before generation and redirects queries based on estimated reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T18:34:20Z)
• MetaFaith: Faithful Natural Language Uncertainty Expression in LLMs [66.14178164421794]
  We introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition.<n>We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:54:08Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models [0.6091702876917281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks.<n>Overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications.<n>We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:46:09Z)

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.