LLM agents increasingly operate in modular systems, where planning requires coordinating multiple functional components whose actions can causally change downstream states and behaviors. This makes intervention-aware prediction essential: an agent must anticipate not only what is likely to happen next, but what will happen as a consequence of its own actions. We find that purely observational world models can incur irreducible intervention-time error in such systems, even when they accurately model observational trajectories. To address this limitation, we propose CausalCompose, a causal world-model framework that equips modular LLM agents with causal structure for intervention-aware prediction and planning. We theoretically show that causal composition can overcome this intervention gap with sufficient evidence and controlled local error. Experiments across diverse modular agent environments validate these results: incorporating causal structure consistently improves intervention-sensitive reasoning and planning, with particularly clear gains in structured tool-use systems where causal dependencies directly govern action execution. Our results show when causal world models help modular LLM agents: when causal dependencies are identifiable and actionable for planning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of CausalCompose . (a) Local evidence: each module preserves local records and mechanisms while exposing compact intervention-response summaries. (b) Interface validation: aggregated evidence validates causal dependencies, including direction and lag, to construct the causal interface graph. (c) Composition and control: the validated graph is composed with local mechanisms for downstream prediction and action guidance, with execution feedback supporting subsequent updates.
Work
Causal WM
Modular
Intervention evidence
Cross-module composition
Planning use
Theory
Gkountouras et al. ( Gkountouras et al., 2025 )
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
CausalPlan ( Nguyen et al., 2025 )
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
Dyna-Think ( Yu et al., 2025 )
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 55
PatchWorld ( Bai et al., 2026 )
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 55
WM3C ( Wang and Huang, 2025 )
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 55
PoE-World ( Piriyakulkij et al., 2025 )
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 55
\ding 51
\ding 51
\ding 55
Table 1. Comparison with closely related work. We compare methods by whether they support causal world modeling, modular structure, intervention-based evidence, cross-module causal composition, planning-time use, and theoretical characterization.
Figure 2. Causal composition and local control in CausalCompose . (a) Validated interfaces connect local mechanisms to propagate intervention effects and predict downstream states. (b) The composed model can optionally guide local actions through prerequisite checks, effect prediction, action gating, and post-action verification.
Method
Success (%)
No World Model
41.79
Global Sequence WM
37.31
Transition Graph WM
33.58
Correlation WM
35.07
Local WM
38.06
Temporal WM
38.81
Table 2. ALFWorld task success (%) over the full evaluation of 134 tasks.
Method
Retail
Airline
No World Model
38.10
18.19
Global Sequence WM
33.33
33.33
Transition Graph WM
42.86
23.19
Correlation WM
43.94
21.86
Local WM
33.33
18.19
Temporal WM
42.76
23.49
Table 3. τ -bench task success (%) on the Retail and Airline domains.
Setting
Baseline
Treatment
Absolute Δ
Relative Δ
τ -bench Anchor ( Oracle-Causal )
45.00
75.00
+30.00
+66.67%
τ -bench Anchor ( Discovered-Causal )
45.00
60.00
+15.00
+33.33%
APIBank Seq-WM → Discovered-Causal
3.61
4.64
+1.03
+28.53%
APIBank Seq-WM → Oracle-Causal
3.61
5.67
+2.06
+57.06%
ScienceWorld
14.80
17.67
+2.87
+19.39%
τ -bench Model Effect
45.23
50.00
+4.77
+10.55%
Table 4. Controlled diagnostics of causal-information usability. Absolute Δ is the Treatment–Baseline difference, and Relative Δ normalizes it by the Baseline. Values are percentages except for ScienceWorld.
Diagnostic
Start
End
Change
ρ
Control
Observational MSE under confounding
0.043
16.309
379.3×
–
γ
Causal MSE under confounding
0.040
0.040
1.0×
–
γ
Observational–causal MSE gap over horizon
1.259
4.764
+3.505
–
H
Causal-edge recovery F1
0.000
0.889
+0.889
+1.000
N
Causal advantage with stronger proxy
0.254
0.132
−48.0%
−1.000
c
Table 5. Synthetic SCM diagnostics for theoretical predictions. Start and End denote the two endpoints of each sweep; Change summarizes the difference, and ρ is the rank correlation over the full sweep.
Environment
Condition
Performance
Calls
Cost/Run
Δ Perf.
Δ Calls
Retail
Sequence
33.33
15.8
$0.0112
–
–
Causal
54.86
16.8
$0.0119
+21.53
+1.0
ALFWorld
Sequence
37.31
33.1
$0.0252
–
–
Causal
49.55
32.6
$0.0248
+12.24
-0.5
ScienceWorld
Sequence
14.80
12.5
$0.0095
–
–
Causal
17.67
7.2
$0.0055
+2.87
-5.3
Table 6. Execution efficiency across three environments. Performance is task success (%) for Retail and ALFWorld and environment score for ScienceWorld; Calls and Cost/Run report average API usage and cost. Δ values are relative to Sequence.
Metric
Measurement
Pipeline stages
6
Processed traces
140
Construction cost
$0.045
Raw-trace communication
90.8 KB
Federated-DAG communication
1.4 KB
Communication reduction
64.9×
Table 7. End-to-end CausalCompose construction and communication measurements.
Depth
Sequence MSE
Oracle MSE
Gap
1
3.432
0.040
3.392
2
3.273
0.040
3.234
3
3.447
0.040
3.407
4
4.155
0.040
4.115
6
3.354
0.040
3.314
8
4.279
0.040
4.239
Table 8. Synthetic dependency-depth sweep. Gap is the Global Sequence WM MSE minus Oracle Causal WM MSE.
Frontier black-box Large Language Model (LLM) agents are proficient at long-horizon reasoning and precise action generation. However, when it comes to a specific agentic task, they have no internalized knowledge of how that particular environment unfolds. A world model offers a natural remedy, providing the agent with environment specific knowledge by foreseeing how the environment will respond to the action it is about to take. Prior world models for LLM agents mainly predict next observations at each step, which is costly and often uninformative because individual observations provide limited task-relevant guidance and not every step requires call for foresight. This raises a key question: what a world model should predict and when should it be invoked for agentic tasks? Our pilot study suggests that world model guidance is most useful when it anticipates pitfalls within a bounded multi-step future. Motivated by this, we introduce Pitfall Anticipation World Model (PAWM), which selectively intervenes when a potential pitfall arises and predicts the impending failure to steer the agent away from it. PAWM is trained in two stages: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on synthetic data labeled with agent pitfalls, followed by GRPO co-training with a black-box LLM to further optimize it in the target environment. PAWM improves Claude Sonnet 4.5 performance by 24.3% on ScienceWorld and 7.7% on WebArena-Lite, outperforming a range of baselines. These results demonstrate that PAWM provides an effective form of world model guidance for black-box LLM agents.
In model-based reinforcement learning, world models exist as internal simulators, but their training often conflates statistical correlations with causal mechanisms. This problem is exacerbated in multi-agent systems where physical transitions are intertwined with strategic agent intents, causing world models to fail under distribution shift. We introduce Implicit Causal World Models to recover environmental dynamics from offline demonstrations without requiring pre-defined causal graphs. By incorporating policy variance, we render world models discoverable via the sequential backdoor condition. Evaluations across coordination tasks (Two-Door, Navigation, and Giveway) demonstrate that these models provide interpretable causal representations under both full and partial observability, with model accuracy scaling directly with interventional strength.
Jasorsi Ghosh
Department of Computer Science Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
We introduce CausaLab, a scalable environment for evaluating interactive causal discovery by LLM agents. Unlike prior evaluations, CausaLab evaluates both whether an agent can solve a problem using causal evidence and whether its answer is grounded in a faithful recovered causal mechanism. Each episode places an agent in a synthetic laboratory: it receives prior measurement records, intervenes on a manipulator crystal, and predicts the resonance frequency of a held-out reactor crystal governed by the same mechanism. The hidden data-generating process is a randomly sampled structural causal model (SCM), so success requires recovering both a causal graph and structural equations rather than recalling prior knowledge. Experiments show a persistent gap between prediction and mechanism recovery: in the purely observational 6-node setting, GPT-5.2-high reaches 92% task accuracy but only 0.471 all-edge F1. Mixed observation-intervention strategies improve structural fidelity, while pure intervention remains difficult even for strong agents. We identify premature stopping as a major weakness and show that consistency verification mitigates it. CausaLab therefore separates predictive success from causal understanding and exposes current LLM agents' limits as experimental causal reasoners.
Junlin Yang, Dylan Zhang, Xiangchen Song +7
Tsinghua University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Carnegie Mellon University +2