Papers › Is Knowledge All Large Language Models Needed for Causal Reasoning?

Is Knowledge All Large Language Models Needed for Causal Reasoning?

30 Dec 2023arXiv:2401.00139archive 2025-07-28

Hengrui Cai, ShengJie Liu, Rui Song

This paper explores the causal reasoning of large language models (LLMs) to enhance their interpretability and reliability in advancing artificial intelligence. Despite the proficiency of LLMs in a range of tasks, their potential for understanding causality requires further exploration. We propose a novel causal attribution model that utilizes ``do-operators" for constructing counterfactual scenarios, allowing us to systematically quantify the influence of input numerical data and LLMs' pre-existing knowledge on their causal reasoning processes. Our newly developed experimental setup assesses LLMs' reliance on contextual information and inherent knowledge across various domains. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs' causal reasoning ability mainly depends on the context and domain-specific knowledge provided. In the absence of such knowledge, LLMs can still maintain a degree of causal reasoning using the available numerical data, albeit with limitations in the calculations. This motivates the proposed fine-tuned LLM for pairwise causal discovery, effectively leveraging both knowledge and numerical information.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ncsulsj/causal_llm. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections