Shrome at Touché: Soft-Vote Ensembling and Counter-Causal Augmentation for Causality Extraction

Causal relation extraction (CRE) is central to biomedical text mining, but current resources often conflate causal relations with broader associations, restrict annotation to sentence-level examples, or focus mainly on explicit causal cues. This limits their usefulness for evaluating whether models can recover causal claims as they are actually expressed in biomedical text. We introduce PubMedCausal, a span-level annotated corpus for biomedical CRE built from PubMed abstracts. The corpus contains 30,000 paragraph-level rows, including 3,945 causal rows and 6,491 adjudicated cause--effect pairs. Each causal relation is annotated with full-text cause and effect spans, causality type, and sententiality, enabling evaluation of both causal detection and full-span causal extraction. We benchmark discriminative encoders and open-source generative models across detection and extraction settings. For causal detection, biomedical encoders are strongest, with PubMedBERT reaching an F$_1$ score of 0.7391. For span-level extraction, the best generative baseline is DeepSeek-R1-32B with few-shot prompting, reaching a Cosine Pair F$_1$ of 0.6765. We further test transfer learning by evaluating PubMedCausal-trained encoders on external causal relation datasets, showing that the resource supports cross-dataset evaluation. Our results show that biomedical CRE remains difficult under class imbalance, long causal spans, implicit causality, inter-sentential relations, and prompt sensitivity. Code and Data can be found here: https://github.com/josiahpaul07/PubMedCausal_Exp

Large language models can extract local causal claims from text, but those claims become more useful when organized as persistent, navigable world models rather than as flat summaries. We introduce PROMETHEUS, a framework that turns retrieved literature, filings, reviews, reports, agent traces, source data, code, simulations, and scientific models into causal atlases: sheaf-like families of local causal predictive-state models over an explicit cover of a research substrate. Each local region contains causal episodes, structured claim tables, predictive tests, support statistics, and provenance; restriction maps compare overlapping regions; gluing diagnostics expose agreement, drift, contradiction, and underdetermination. The resulting Topos World Model is not a single universal graph. It is a research instrument for navigating what a corpus says, where it says it, how strongly it is supported, and where local claims fail to assemble into a coherent global view. Three literature-atlas case studies -- ocean-temperature impacts on marine populations, GLP-1 weight-loss evidence, and resveratrol/red-wine health-benefit claims -- illustrate deep causal research from text with explicit locality, evidence, persistent state, and gluing tension. Four grounded-counterfactual case studies -- a Nature Climate Change microplastics forcing paper, an Indus Valley hydrology paper with VIC-derived figure data and model code, the canonical Sachs protein-signaling study with single-cell perturbation data, and a Nature singing-mouse study with MAPseq projection matrices -- show a stronger mode: when a paper ships source data, simulation outputs, or code, PROMETHEUS can evaluate a counterfactual against that scientific substrate and then rebuild the sheaf world model around the

We find a mismatch between what large language models encode about a causal question and what they answer. On anti-commonsense CLadder items, a fixed linear probe recovers the evidence-supported answer from the model's hidden state (accuracy approximately 0.97), while the spoken Yes/No reverts to the commonsense one (accuracy approximately 0.5). We call this approximately +0.5 gap Causal Tongue-Tie: a wrong Yes/No decomposes into two separable failure modes: no internal signal versus a signal the verbal interface cannot say. The implication cuts both ways for output-only causal benchmarks: a benchmark "correct" need not mean the model has understood, and a benchmark "wrong" need not mean it cannot. Sweeping claims about whether LLMs can do causal reasoning, drawn from a single accuracy number, deserve a second look.