Causal Evidence Extraction and Triangulation in Crisis Reports using Large Language Models: A ReliefWeb-based Study

During disasters, extracting causal relations from social media can strengthen situational awareness by identifying factors linked to casualties, physical damage, infrastructure disruption, and cascading impacts. However, disaster-related posts are often informal, fragmented, and context-dependent, and they may describe personal experiences rather than explicit causal relations. In this work, we examine whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can effectively extract causal relations from disaster-related social media posts. To this end, we (1) propose an expert-grounded evaluation framework that compares LLM-generated causal graphs with reference graphs derived from disaster-specific reports and (2) assess whether the extracted relations are supported by post-event evidence or instead reflect model priors. Our findings highlight both the potential and risks of using LLMs for causal relation extraction in disaster decision-support systems.

Effective humanitarian response depends on the rapid synthesis of heterogeneous, high-volume information sources - a task that routinely exceeds human analytical capacity in the critical early hours of a crisis. We present a pipeline that combines structured disaster records from EM-DAT with unstructured documents from ReliefWeb and the European Media Monitor (EMM) to produce source-grounded disaster storylines and causal knowledge graphs supporting situational awareness for responders and analysts. Using Retrieval-Augmented Generation, the pipeline extracts structured storylines - tabular event profiles covering 17 fields, from severity and key drivers to child-sensitive impact indicators - and constructs causal knowledge graphs where each node and edge is enriched with citation-grounded explanatory narratives, enabling full traceability back to primary sources. We evaluate the system on three diverse crisis use cases through a human evaluation involving 9 domain expert and 9 non-expert evaluators. Results confirm high retrieval precision, strong faithfulness of extracted causal relations, and a clear expert preference for citation-grounded components over ungrounded alternatives. The pipeline is designed to scale to the full EM-DAT catalogue, with the goal of publicly releasing a narrative-enriched version of the database.

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