Words as Difference Makers: How Large Language Models Determine Causal Structure in Text

Large language models reach 50 to 70% accuracy on causal reasoning benchmarks such as CLadder, but it is unclear whether this reflects structural reasoning or lexical pattern matching. We introduce Caliper, a controlled perturbation that replaces semantic variable names with placeholder tokens while preserving the causal graph and probabilistic specification of each question. Across nine instruction-tuned LLMs from 3.8B to 671B and three causal reasoning benchmarks, lexical anonymization yields robust accuracy drops of +7.6, +27.0, and +11.1 pp on a local 3.8B-14B set, rising to +29.6 and +18.0 pp on CRASS and e-CARE across nine frontier models spanning the 2024-2026 generations. Of 40 engaged model-by-benchmark cells, 39 show a positive gap, and the gap collapses by 17x on CLadder's pseudoword subset. Structured scaffolding and few-shot in-context learning each narrow the gap, but mainly by lowering P0 accuracy on smaller models rather than recovering P1. Current instruction-tuned LLMs, evaluated zero-shot, show little evidence of structural causal reasoning once lexical anchors are removed.

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

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.