We present a winning three-stage system for SemEval 2026 Task12: Abductive Event Reasoning that combines graph-based retrieval, LLM-driven abductive reasoning with prompt design optimized through reflective prompt evolution, and post-hoc consistency enforcement; our system ranks first on the evaluation-phase leaderboard with an accuracy score of 0.95. Cross-model error analysis across 14 models (7families) reveals three shared inductive biases: causal chain incompleteness, proximate cause preference, and salience bias, whose cross-family convergence (51% cause-count reduction) indicates systematic rather than model-specific failure modes in multi-label causal reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: System pipeline. Stage 1 constructs a hybrid document graph (Figure 2 ), selects dense/sparse entry points, retrieves the connected component, and filters disconnected distractors. Stage 2 performs structured analysis-before-answer prompting with self-consistency. Stage 3 applies eight post-hoc consistency heuristics.
Figure 2: Hybrid document-graph retrieval in three steps. Step 1: Build a hybrid similarity graph ( α=0.7 dense +0.3 sparse); disconnected documents ( d9 – d12 ) are potential distractors. Step 2: At query time, pick entry points from dense and sparse signals (3 + 2, deduplicated). Step 3: Retrieve the full connected component from the seeds, filter disconnected documents, and pass the selected topic context to the LLM reasoner.
Component
Description
Dense embeddings
Cohere Embed v4 (1024-dim)
Sparse retrieval
BM25+ Robertson and Zaragoza (2009) with 3 × entity boosting
Table 2: Model configurations evaluated. Reasoning models use extended thinking or chain-of-thought.
Model
Score
Standard Models
Claude Haiku 4.5
0.788
Claude Sonnet 4
0.781
Claude Sonnet 4.5
0.790
Claude Opus 4.0
0.770
Claude Opus 4.5
0.801
DeepSeek V3.1
0.709
Table 3: Zero-shot baseline results (dev set). Bold marks the best score within each group under the partial-credit metric (Section 4 ).
Configuration
Base
+ Post-hoc
Individual Models
Claude Son. 4.5 Thinking
0.904
0.952
GPT-5.2
0.912
0.949
Gemini 3 Flash
0.907
0.943
Self-Consistency
SC: Sonnet 3 × ( θ=0.50 )
0.902
0.948
SC: Gemini 5 × ( θ=0.50 )
0.902
0.943
Ensemble
Sonnet + GPT + Gemini
0.926
0.952
Table 4: Test set results. Post-hoc = deterministic consistency enforcement via heuristics. SC = self-consistency with majority voting; θ = inclusion threshold.
System
Single
Multi
Δ
GPT-5.2
91.0
52.6
− 38.4
Claude Son. 4.5 Thinking
88.6
60.5
− 28.1
Gemini 3 Flash
85.2
63.7
− 21.5
Table 5: Exact-match accuracy (%) by answer cardinality across three frontier systems. Multi-answer questions (190/400, 47.5%) are inherently harder due to the combinatorial requirement.
Appendix figures & tables32 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Statistic
Train
Dev
Test
Questions
1,819
400
612
Topics
36
36
24
Documents
775
775
405
Multi-answer (%)
42.7
47.5
–
Avg. Q/Topic
50.5
11.1
25.5
Avg. Doc Length
1188
1188
899
Appendix
Table 6: Dataset statistics across splits. Multi-answer percentage indicates questions with more than one correct answer.
Target Event
Candidate Options
Gold
Ontario placed a 25% tax on electricity exports to the U.S.
(A) Trump placed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada. (B) McKinley was shot by anarchist Czolgosz in 1901. (C) The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. (D) McKinley died on Sept. 14, 1901.
A
The Chinese government criticized Japan’s plan to release Fukushima wastewater.
(A) IAEA confirmed the release would have negligible radiological effect. (B) Japan’s cabinet approved a treated-water plan in 2021. (C) Japan announced its plan to release treated wastewater into the sea. (D) TEPCO has used water to cool nuclear fuel rods since 2011.
B,C
Facebook changed its corporate name to Meta at the annual Connect event.
(A) Zuckerberg introduced Meta at the Connect 2021 event. (B) Facebook announced Bosworth’s promotion to CTO. (C) Facebook plans to change its name to reflect metaverse focus. (D) Zuckerberg announced Facebook was betting on the metaverse.
A,C,D
Goldman Sachs estimated AI could automate 300 million jobs worldwide.
(A) OpenAI released ChatGPT Plus and later introduced GPT-4 Turbo. (B) Stack Overflow banned ChatGPT-generated answers. (C) None of the others are correct causes. (D) OpenAI launched DALL-E 2 beta in July 2022.
C
Appendix
Table 7: Representative examples illustrating each answer cardinality. Correct options are shown in bold . Option texts are abbreviated for space.
Figure 3: Dataset composition across splits.
Category
Count
Percentage
Option A selected
909
41.0%
Option B selected
857
38.6%
Option C selected
891
40.2%
Option D selected
836
37.7%
Single answer
928
41.8%
Two answers
660
29.7%
Appendix
Table 8: Answer distribution analysis on the combined train and dev sets.
Figure 4: Answer frequency by option.
Figure 5: Distribution of answer cardinality.
Figure 6: Most common multi-answer combinations.
Metric
Value
Label cardinality
1.574
Label density
0.394
Multi-label rate
43.6%
Appendix
Table 9: Multi-label characteristics of the dataset.
Figure 7: Answer co-occurrence matrix.
ID
Topic Description
Questions
Docs
Multi%
Context
19
Historic winter storm paralyzes Texas, causin…
132
24
53.0
18,289
30
Killing of George Floyd by police sparks Blac…
113
25
57.5
70,271
23
Japan begins discharging treated Fukushima nu…
111
24
45.0
38,702
24
Halloween crowd crush in Seoul’s Itaewon kill…
111
28
45.0
14,375
22
Iranian General Qasem Soleimani killed by US …
110
20
36.4
12,160
32
Taliban regains control of Afghanistan after …
109
27
55.0
24,098
Appendix
Table 10: Topic-level statistics (top 10 topics by question count). Full table in supplementary materials.
Figure 8: Topic characteristics: questions vs complexity (bubble size = document count, color = context length).
Figure 9: Distribution of document lengths (99th percentile shown).
Figure 10: Target event length distribution.
Figure 11: Frequency of structural patterns addressed by post-hoc consistency via heuristics.
Figure 12: Sibling group size distribution. Groups of 2+ questions enable cross-question consistency enforcement.
Heuristic
Name
Scope
Mechanism
Changes
R1
None Exclusivity
Local
Enforce mutual exclusivity of “None” option
6
R2
Duplicate Consistency
Local
Ensure identical options receive same prediction
13
R3
Over-selection Guard
Local
Resolve over-selection when all four options predicted
0
R4
Cross-Q Dup. Prop.
Cross-Q
Propagate duplicate consistency to sibling questions
20
R5
Triple Exclusion
Cross-Q
Exclude unique option from triple-duplicate siblings
1
R6
None Cross-Exclusion
Cross-Q
Extend None exclusivity to sibling questions
4
Appendix
Table 11: Post-hoc consistency heuristics applied iteratively until convergence (fixed-point). Scope indicates whether the heuristic operates within a single question (Local) or across sibling questions sharing the same target event (Cross-Q). Changes reported on Claude Sonnet 4.5 (thinking), dev set.
Figure 13: Cumulative accuracy improvement from post-hoc consistency heuristics on Claude Sonnet 4.5 (thinking) predictions. Background colors indicate heuristic scope: local (blue), cross-question (red), and closure (green). Black line shows per-rule improvement.
Figure 14: Document graph and query-time selection for Topic 7 (South Korean impeachment crisis). Node positions are identical across panels. (a) Document context graph: 14 documents connected by hybrid similarity edges (semantic-dominant, lexical-dominant, balanced). The densely connected component captures the core impeachment narrative; peripheral nodes represent tangentially related events. (b) Query-time selection for q-2043 (target: “Yoon’s aides offered to resign”): 6/14 documents (43%) selected via 3 dense entries, 2 sparse entries, and 1 traversal-discovered node. Grey nodes are filtered distractors.
Metric
Value
Avg. documents per topic
21.5
Avg. retrieved per question
16.6 (73%)
Avg. in topic-wide context
15.8 (73%)
Likely distractors excluded
27%
Prompt cache hit rate
91%
Overall inference cost reduction
87%
Appendix
Table 12: Retrieval statistics on the dev set (400 questions, 36 topics, 775 documents).
Model
Base
+Retr.
Δ
Haiku 3.5 †
0.440
0.530
+ 0.090
Sonnet 4
0.781
0.785
+ 0.004
Gemini 3 Flash
0.804
0.806
+ 0.003
GPT-5.2
0.810
0.818
+ 0.008
† 100 questions; others on full dev set (400).
Appendix
Table 13: Impact of distractor filtering on accuracy. Smaller models benefit substantially from context reduction Xu et al. (2024) .
Figure 15: Structured zero-shot prompt for direct inference (Section 3.2 ).
QID
Topic
Gold
Consensus
Fail
Multi?
Pattern
Truly unbreakable: all 14 models score zero (all 7 families fail)
q-2261
Afghanistan
A,C
D
14/14
Yes
Under-sel. + proximal
q-2356
DeepSeek
D
C
14/14
No
Consensus wrong (7/14 C)
q-2411
DOGE/Musk
A
D
14/14
No
Consensus wrong (13/14 D)
Near-unbreakable: ≥ 12 models score zero
q-2341
Afghanistan
B,C,D
A
13/14
Yes
Under-sel. + wrong opt.
Appendix
Table 14: Hardest questions across 14 models (7 families). Top: 3 questions where all models score zero. Bottom: 6 near-unbreakable questions where ≥ 12 models fail. Fail = models scoring zero. Under-sel. = multi-answer under-selection; Consensus wrong = majority agrees on incorrect option; Proximal-cause bias = models prefer temporally nearest cause Joshi et al. (2024) .
ID
Domain
N
Multi%
κ14
26
California Fire
3
—
0.456
33
Amazon fires
14
43
0.457
30
George Floyd
18
72
0.458
18
DeepSeek
14
—
0.492
32
Afghanistan
23
57
0.545
12
Wagner
11
—
0.547
Appendix
Table 15: Hardest topics by Fleiss’ κ across 14 models. Topics with complex causal structures and high multi-answer prevalence show the lowest agreement.
Figure 16: Per-topic Fleiss’ κ across 14 models (bar labels = question counts per topic); dashed line marks the per-topic mean ( κ=0.697 ). Topics are sorted by agreement, coloured by Landis–Koch interpretation: green = almost perfect ( κ≥0.81 ), yellow = substantial ( 0.61 – 0.80 ), orange = moderate ( 0.41 – 0.60 ).
Metric
Value
Fleiss’ κ Fleiss (1971)
0.690
Kripp. α (Jaccard) Krippendorff (2011)
0.645
Kripp. α (nominal)
0.613
Unanimous agreement
10.0%
Majority agreement
100%
Within-family κˉ
0.794
Appendix
Table 16: Inter-annotator agreement metrics across 14 models (7 families: Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, GPT, Kimi, Llama, Qwen) on 400 dev questions.
Figure 17: Family-level mean pairwise Cohen’s κ across 14 models (7 families). Frontier families (Claude, Gemini, GPT, Kimi) show high mutual agreement ( κ>0.77 ); DeepSeek is dragged down by R1’s low accuracy. Numbers in parentheses = model count per family. Diagonal masked (within-family comparison undefined for single-model families).
Figure 18: Dev-set difficulty distribution across 14 models: Easy 38, Medium 225, Hard 95, Very Hard 42 (based on how many models score zero). The majority of questions are medium-difficulty, with only 42 very hard questions where ≥ 10 models fail.
Configuration
k
Base
+SC
Δ
Same-Model SC ( τ=1.0 )
Claude Sonnet 4.5
3
0.790
0.806
+ 1.6
Gemini 3 Flash
3
0.804
0.810
+ 0.6
Multi-Model Ensemble
Son. Think + GPT + Gemini
3
—
0.811
—
Appendix
Table 17: Self-consistency and multi-model ensemble on the dev set (400 questions). k = number of predictions aggregated via majority voting ( θ=0.5 ). Same-model SC provides negligible gains; multi-model combination provides modest gains through model complementarity.
Strategy
θ
Dev
Test
Sonnet 4.5 ( k=3 , τ=1.0 )
Baseline ( k=1 )
—
0.790
0.904 †
Majority
0.50
0.806
0.902
Union
0.33
0.788
0.869
Strict Majority
0.67
0.784
0.897
Intersection
1.00
0.784
0.897
Appendix
Table 18: Self-consistency aggregation strategies on dev (400 questions) and test (612 questions). θ = per-option inclusion threshold. Bold = best SC strategy per section.
Figure 19: Failure mechanism breakdown across 42 no-exact-match questions (14 models). Causal chain incompleteness, proximate cause preference, and salience bias together account for 38/42 failures, all manifestations of the single-cause default bias.
Figure 20: Failure gradient across 14 models: distribution of how many models fail each question. 88 questions (22%) are solved by all 14 models; only 3 questions (0.75%) defeat all 14. The long right tail (10-14 failures) contains 22 questions requiring systematic improvements.
Figure 21: Per-model exact-match accuracy by answer cardinality across 14 models. Every model shows a single-to-multi gap (25-56 pp); under-selections (1,389 total) vastly exceed over-selections (52), confirming conservative cause selection as the dominant shared bias.
Understanding why real-world events occur is important for both natural language processing and practical decision-making, yet direct-cause inference remains underexplored in evidence-rich settings. To address this gap, we organized SemEval-2026 Task 12: Abductive Event Reasoning (AER).\footnote{The task data is available at https://github.com/sooo66/semeval2026-task12-dataset.git} The task asks systems to identify the most plausible direct cause of a target event from supporting evidence. We formulate AER as an evidence-grounded multiple-choice benchmark that captures key challenges of real-world causal reasoning, including distributed evidence, indirect background factors, and semantically related but non-causal distractors. The shared task attracted 122 participants and received 518 submissions. This paper presents the task formulation, dataset construction pipeline, evaluation setup, and system results. AER provides a focused benchmark for abductive reasoning over real-world events and highlights challenges for future work on causal reasoning and multi-document understanding.
Pengfei Cao, Mingxuan Yang, Yubo Chen +4
The Key Laboratory of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of reasoning flaws vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the structure of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning knowledge graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.
Zipeng Ling, Shuliang Liu, Seonil Son +4
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Alberta · Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute +3
Sparse autoencoders can localize where concepts live in language models, but not how they interact during multi-step reasoning. We propose Causal Concept Graphs (CCG): a directed acyclic graph over sparse, interpretable latent features, where edges capture learned causal dependencies between concepts. We combine task-conditioned sparse autoencoders for concept discovery with DAGMA-style differentiable structure learning for graph recovery and introduce the Causal Fidelity Score (CFS) to evaluate whether graph-guided interventions induce larger downstream effects than random ones. On ARC-Challenge, StrategyQA, and LogiQA with GPT-2 Medium, across five seeds (n=15 paired runs), CCG achieves \CFS=5.654±0.625, outperforming ROME-style tracing (3.382±0.233), SAE-only ranking (2.479±0.196), and a random baseline (1.032±0.034), with p<0.0001 after Bonferroni correction. Learned graphs are sparse (5-6% edge density), domain-specific, and stable across seeds.
Md Muntaqim Meherab, Noor Islam S. Mohammad, Faiza Feroz
Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh · New York University, Brooklyn, NY, USA