Causally Evaluating the Learnability of Formal Language Tasks

The ability to understand causality significantly impacts the competence of large language models (LLMs) in output explanation and counterfactual reasoning, as causality reveals the underlying data distribution. However, the lack of a comprehensive benchmark currently limits the evaluation of LLMs' causal learning capabilities. To fill this gap, this paper develops CausalBN-Bench based on data from the causal research community, enabling comparative evaluations of LLMs against traditional causal learning algorithms. To provide a comprehensive investigation, we offer three tasks of varying difficulties, including correlation, causal skeleton, and causality identification. Evaluations of 19 leading LLMs reveal that, while closed-source LLMs show potential for simple causal relationships, they significantly lag behind traditional algorithms on larger-scale networks ($>50$ nodes). Specifically, LLMs struggle with collider structures but excel at chain structures, especially at long-chain causality analogous to Chain-of-Thought techniques. This supports the current prompt approaches while suggesting directions to enhance LLMs' causal reasoning capability. Furthermore, CausalBN-Bench incorporates background knowledge and training data into prompts to thoroughly unlock LLMs' text-comprehension ability during evaluation, whose findings indicate that, LLM understand causality through semantic associations with distinct entities, rather than directly from contextual information or numerical distributions.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a central post-training paradigm for eliciting reasoning capabilities in large language models, yet uniform task sampling allocates compute without regard to differences in how tasks respond to optimization. Existing task-valuation methods mostly rely on snapshot-based signals such as current pass rate or reward, which estimate how solvable a task is under the current policy. However, tasks with similar current solvability can still differ substantially in how positively they respond to further training. We study this residual axis as task learnability: a regime-conditional measure of expected positive response to continued training under a fixed RL post-training regime. By analyzing per-task reward trajectories, we find that learnability is reproducible across independently sampled training contexts and predictive of downstream utility. To make this signal practical before training begins, we propose TrajVal, a lightweight probe-based estimator that approximates per-task learnability from a short probe run and two endpoint evaluations. TrajVal can be used either as a standalone static prior for task sampling or as a multiplicative prior for existing online schedulers. Experiments on mathematical and logical reasoning benchmarks across multiple model scales show that TrajVal improves data efficiency over uniform sampling and provides complementary gains when combined with online scheduling methods.

Causal discovery is a cornerstone of scientific reasoning, yet whether large language models can perform it reliably remains an open question. Recent benchmarks show that even fine-tuned models plateau on simple causal graphs and degrade as complexity grows, but why they fail has not been established. We prove the failure is fundamental: supervised fine-tuning, direct preference optimization, and in-context learning all produce predictors that cannot distinguish between causal graphs generating similar observational data, and any attempt to do so requires the model's internal representations to grow unboundedly, violating the very conditions under which these methods work. We formalize this as a kernel obstruction theorem, establishing that the limitation is intrinsic to the learning paradigm, \emph{not any particular model or dataset}. We propose Agentic Causal Bayesian Optimization (A-CBO), wherein a frozen language model serves as an interventional oracle answering targeted queries about intervention effects, while an external Bayesian loop concentrates beliefs over candidate graphs in logarithmically many rounds. Because the decision operates outside the space where the obstruction applies, A-CBO provably converges while the underlying model remains unchanged. On Corr2Cause, A-CBO matches fine-tuned baselines without any training. On Extended Corr2Cause, a new benchmark scaling to 24 variables with 18K test samples, A-CBO significantly outperforms both fine-tuning and preference optimization, with the advantage growing