Causal Reasoning in Language Models

Causal interventions in language model representations have largely targeted discrete features, like grammatical number. However, language models must also make use of features that are graded. We introduce a method for causal intervention on continuous variables: given activation vectors paired with a graded target variable, we localize a low-dimensional direction for that variable and use this direction to edit a vectors toward counterfactual target values. We apply this method to a continuous feature that is well-studied in psycholinguistics, namely verb bias (which reflects which syntactic structures tend to follow a given verb). We show that verb bias is causally represented in steering vectors extracted from large language models: counterfactual edits to verb bias systematically shift downstream structural preferences. Verb bias has also previously been linked to in-context learning; in further analyses, we find that steering vectors encode error signals that could drive the error-driven update behavior seen in in-context learning but that these aspects of the steering vectors are not causally used in downstream production. Overall, these results show causal interventions can be applied to continuous variables, though connecting continuous variables to in-context learning remains a challenge.

Vision-language models (VLMs) generate fluent causal explanations, but current evaluations cannot distinguish linguistic plausibility from faithful causal reasoning. We introduce a dual-probe methodology that isolates these properties. The Text-Only Probe measures linguistic quality. The Chain-Text Probe requires models to first generate explicit causal chains. The Abstraction Gap (AG) metric quantifies the normalized performance difference. Evaluating eight VLMs on CAGE (Causal Abstraction Gap Evaluation), a benchmark of 49,500 questions across 5,500 images spanning Pearl's causal hierarchy, we find seven models exhibit AG exceeding 0.50 with text scores of 6--8 but chain scores below 2.5. Fine-tuning on 45,000 chain-annotated examples fails to close the gap. However, one model achieves near-zero AG. The capability exists within current VLM architectures and depends on pretraining and architectural choices. CAGE provides a diagnostic tool for assessing faithful causal reasoning in VLMs.

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, 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

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 $F_1$. 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.

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.

Despite the importance of causal reasoning, training LLMs to reason causally remains underexplored. Existing data efforts mostly focus on benchmarking LLMs on specific aspects of causality, making them less suitable for training generalizable causal reasoners. To address this, we propose UniCo, a data generation framework that both (1) addresses 18 causal query types across Pearl's Causal Ladder and (2) translates natively symbolic examples into code and natural language forms to simulate real-world use cases where causal terms are not explicitly specified. To ensure data quality, UniCo grounds answers with exact causal inference and filters cases with reasoning shortcuts. Upon supervised finetuning with 66.6K UniCo-generated instances, Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B and Olmo-3-7B-Instruct achieve an average of 22.9% improvements across all 18 in-distribution query types, and 8.1% over state-of-the-art causal data generation frameworks on 7 established causal benchmarks outside the training distribution. More importantly, in real-world medical understanding, legal decision, and tabular reasoning, UniCo-trained models consistently display more faithful reasoning traces, outperforming the base models by an average of 20.2% in faithfulness metrics. These suggest that causality-centered training not only strengthens causal reasoning, but also equips LLMs with a causal mindset in general reasoning tasks.

We propose a five-stage methodology for causal feature analysis in transformer language models (probe design, feature extraction, causal validation, robustness testing, and deployment integration) and demonstrate it end-to-end on GPT-2 small performing the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task. Activation patching recovers the canonical IOI circuit (layer-9 head 9 alone gives recovery +1.02). A sparse autoencoder recovers per-name selective features with effect sizes of 30 to 50 activation units. Causal validation finds these features specifically but only partially causal: ablating fifteen of them leaves the model accurate on 98% of prompts. Two NLA-inspired evaluations strengthen this picture: the fifteen selective features explain only 31% of activation variance versus the SAE's 99.7%, and selectivity ratio anticorrelates with causal force (r = -0.56). Robustness testing under three distribution shifts finds that the circuit transfers cleanly but feature ablation effects degrade substantially, exposing a gap between detection robustness and causal robustness. A cost-based deployment evaluation (assumed $50/FN,$0.42/FP, 2% error rate) finds an optimal monitor configuration yielding $8.96 per 1000 queries against a$1000 baseline, a 99.1% saving. Optimal composition strategy varies with cost ratio and base rate. The conjunction of stages produces findings no single stage would.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of inattentional blindness in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of explicit-implicit reasoning and present MixRea, a benchmark of 2,246 multiple-choice questions across 9 reasoning types with varying distributions of explicit and implicit information. Evaluation of 21 advanced LLMs shows that even the best-performing reasoning model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 42.8% consistency, revealing widespread inattentional blindness. To mitigate this, we propose Potential Relation Completion Prompting (PRCP), a prompting method that improves reasoning by recovering overlooked causal relations. Further analysis shows that this limitation persists across diverse multi-source reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more cognitively aligned models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate realistic synthetic data but offer no guarantee that their outputs respect the causal mechanisms governing the target domain. We introduce CausalSynth, a framework that decouples causal structure generation from semantic realization, yielding synthetic data that is both causally valid and linguistically rich. The framework operates in three phases. First, a Structural Causal Model (SCM) - a tuple of structural equations defined over a directed acyclic graph (DAG) generates causal skeletons, i.e., variable assignments that satisfy the Global Markov Property of the governing DAG, via ancestral sampling. Second, an LLM acts as a constrained realizer, a conditional translator that maps each skeleton to a high-dimensional observation such as a clinical note or a transaction log. Third, an Iterative Consistency Verification module detects structural violations through deterministic extraction and feeds targeted corrections back to the LLM, forming a closed-loop refinement process. We identify the Semantic Backdoor problem the systematic tendency of LLMs to override imposed causal facts with pre-training priors -- and prove that our iterative mechanism reduces the resulting selection bias relative to standard rejection sampling. On three causal benchmarks (ASIA, ALARM, and MIMIC-Struct), CausalSynth preserved conditional independencies with false-positive rates near the nominal $α=0.05$ level and achieved realizability rates above 96% with 70B-parameter LLM backbones. The framework additionally supports principled interventional and counterfactual generation through noise retention and graph mutilation.

Large language models achieve strong performance in language generation and knowledge-intensive tasks, yet remain limited in settings requiring causal reasoning, persistent state tracking, and long-horizon planning. We argue that these limitations may arise from an objective-level mismatch between sequence prediction and reasoning over latent environment dynamics. To formalize this distinction, we introduce Latent Dynamics Inference (LDI), a conceptual perspective that interprets language and multimodal observations as partial evidence of underlying transition dynamics. To empirically investigate this perspective, we introduce Flux, a sequential reasoning environment specified entirely through natural-language rules. As a proof-of-concept case study, the rules are first compiled into an explicit state-transition simulator, illustrating that structured latent transition dynamics can, in some cases, be operationally extracted from textual rule descriptions. This enables a controlled comparison between the LLMs operating purely over textual observations and reinforcement-learning agents trained directly within the extracted latent state space. Within this case study, agents operating with explicit access to the latent state space exhibit substantially more stable behavior in long-horizon gameplay, achieving an aggregate win rate of approximately 79% versus 11% for LLMs. Qualitative analysis further reveals failure modes consistent with unstable persistent state tracking, including invalid actions, state-tracking errors, and short-horizon reasoning failures. The complete implementation of the Flux environment available at https://github.com/FeisalAlaswad/FLUX-RL-Agent Within the evaluated setting, these results suggest that strong sequence prediction alone may struggle to support robust long-horizon dynamic reasoning without mechanisms for persistent state tracking and transition modeling

To effectively interact with the real world, Large Language Models (LLMs) require entity-based commonsense reasoning, a challenging task that necessitates integrating factual knowledge about specific entities with commonsense inference. Existing datasets for evaluating LLM entity-based commonsense reasoning have largely focused on True/False or multiple-choice questions, leaving the explicit assessment of the model's ability in abductive reasoning about causes and effects and generating explanations largely unexamined. In this work, we introduce CommonWhy, a dataset of 15,000 why questions designed to evaluate entity-based commonsense reasoning about causal relationships in LLMs. CommonWhy also serves as a Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) benchmark, as all supporting knowledge required to answer its queries is available in the Wikidata knowledge graph. Unlike existing KGQA datasets, which primarily test fact retrieval, CommonWhy targets causal commonsense reasoning, establishing a new paradigm for KGQA evaluation. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs and LLM-based KGQA methods reveal their significant shortcomings, including frequent factual hallucinations and failures in causal reasoning.

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

Despite surpassing human performance across mathematics, coding, and other knowledge-intensive tasks, large language models (LLMs) continue to struggle with causal reasoning. A core obstacle is the target data itself: causal systems are complex and often expressed in non-executable forms, while ground-truth answers to causal queries are inherently scarce. We introduce CauSim, a framework that turns causal reasoning from a scarce-label problem into a scalable supervised one. CauSim constructs increasingly complex causal simulators: executable structural causal models (SCMs), incrementally built by LLMs, that scale to globally complex systems while maintaining verifiable answers to causal queries. CauSim operates across representations by formalizing non-executable causal knowledge into code, enabling data augmentation, and translating executable SCMs into natural language, enabling supervision in previously difficult-to-supervise representations. We structure our research into two parts: (1) how to construct increasingly complex causal simulators, and (2) a systematic study of what CauSim enables, demonstrating generalization across representations, consistent gains from curriculum scaling and data volume, LLM self-improvement through self-generated simulators, and data augmentation via formalization of existing domain knowledge.

Causal reasoning in natural language requires identifying relevant variables, understanding their interactions, and reasoning about effects and interventions, often under noisy or ambiguous conditions. While large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong general reasoning abilities, they struggle to disentangle correlation from causation, particularly when observations are partially incorrect or irrelevant information is present. In this work, we introduce NoisyCausal, a new benchmark designed to evaluate causal reasoning under structured noise. Each instance is generated from a ground-truth causal graph and contextualized with a natural language scenario by injecting controllable forms of noise, such as irrelevant distractors, value perturbations, confounding, and partial observability. Moreover, we propose a modular reasoning framework that combines LLMs with explicit causal structure to address these challenges. Our method prompts the LLM to extract variables, construct a causal graph from context, and then reformulates the reasoning task as a structured prompt grounded in this graph. Rather than relying on statistical patterns alone, the LLM is guided by symbolic structure, enabling more interpretable and robust inference. Experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms standard prompting and reasoning baselines on NoisyCausal. Furthermore, it generalizes well to external benchmarks such as Cladder without task-specific tuning. Our findings highlight the importance of combining causal abstractions with language-driven reasoning to achieve faithful and robust causal understanding in LLMs.

Event Causality Identification (ECI) requires models to determine whether a given pair of events in a context exhibits a causal relationship. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across various NLP tasks, their effectiveness in ECI remains limited due to biases in causal reasoning, often leading to overprediction of causal relationships (causal hallucination). To mitigate these issues and enhance LLM performance in ECI, we propose SERE, a structural example retrieval framework that leverages LLMs' few-shot learning capabilities. SERE introduces an innovative retrieval mechanism based on three structural concepts: (i) Conceptual Path Metric, which measures the conceptual relationship between events using edit distance in ConceptNet; (ii) Syntactic Metric, which quantifies structural similarity through tree edit distance on syntactic trees; and (iii) Causal Pattern Filtering, which filters examples based on predefined causal structures using LLMs. By integrating these structural retrieval strategies, SERE selects more relevant examples to guide LLMs in causal reasoning, mitigating bias and improving accuracy in ECI tasks. Extensive experiments on multiple ECI datasets validate the effectiveness of SERE. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/DMIRLAB-Group/SERE.

Safety trained large language models (LLMs) can often be induced to answer harmful requests through jailbreak prompts. Because we lack a robust understanding of why LLMs are susceptible to jailbreaks, future frontier models operating more autonomously in higher-stakes settings may similarly be vulnerable to such attacks. Prior work has studied jailbreak success by examining the model's intermediate representations, identifying directions in this space that causally encode concepts like harmfulness and refusal. Then, they globally explain all jailbreak attacks as attempting to reduce or strengthen these concepts (e.g., reduce harmfulness). However, different jailbreak strategies may succeed by strengthening or suppressing different intermediate concepts, and the same jailbreak strategy may not work for different harmful request categories (e.g., violence vs. cyberattack); thus, we seek to give a local explanation -- i.e., why did this specific jailbreak succeed? To address this gap, we introduce LOCA, a method that gives Local, CAusal explanations of jailbreak success by identifying a minimal set of interpretable, intermediate representation changes that causally induce model refusal on an otherwise successful jailbreak request. We evaluate LOCA on harmful original-jailbreak pairs from a large jailbreak benchmark across Gemma and Llama chat models, comparing against prior methods adapted to this setting. LOCA can successfully induce refusal by making, on average, six interpretable changes; prior work routinely fails to achieve refusal even after 20 changes. LOCA is a step toward mechanistic, local explanations of jailbreak success in LLMs. Code to be released.

Extracting abstract causal structures and applying them to novel situations is a hallmark of human intelligence. While Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong performance on a wide range of reasoning tasks, their capacity for interactive causal learning -- inducing latent structures through sequential exploration and transferring them across contexts -- remains uncharacterized. Human learners accomplish such transfer after minimal exposure, whereas classical Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents fail catastrophically. Whether state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence (AI) models possess human-like mechanisms for abstract causal structure transfer is an open question. Using the OpenLock paradigm requiring sequential discovery of Common Cause (CC) and Common Effect (CE) structures, here we show that models exhibit fundamentally delayed or absent transfer: even successful models require initial environmental-specific mapping -- what we term environmental grounding -- before efficiency gains emerge, whereas humans leverage prior structural knowledge from the very first solution attempt. In the text-only condition, models matched or exceeded human discovery efficiency. In contrast, visual information -- in both the image-only and text-and-image conditions -- overall degraded rather than enhanced performance, revealing a broad reliance on symbolic processing rather than integrated multimodal reasoning. Models further exhibited systematic CC/CE asymmetries absent in humans, suggesting heuristic biases rather than direction-neutral causal abstraction. These findings reveal that large-scale statistical learning does not produce the decontextualized causal schemas underpinning human analogical reasoning, establishing grounding-dependent transfer as a fundamental limitation of current LLMs and VLMs.

Predicting the outcomes of prospective clinical trials remains a major challenge for large language models. Prior work has shown that both traditional correlational predictors, such as random forests and logistic regression, and strong commercial LLMs achieve limited performance on this task. In this paper, we propose DeepImagine, a framework for teaching LLMs biomedical reasoning through successive counterfactual imagining. The central idea is to approximate hidden causal mechanisms of clinical trials by training models to infer how observed trial results would change under controlled perturbations of experimental conditions, such as dosage, outcome measures, study arms, geography, and other trial attributes. To support this objective, we construct both natural and approximate counterfactual pairs from real clinical trials with reported outcomes. For settings where strict counterfactual supervision is available, such as paired outcome measures or dose-ranging study arms within the same trial, we train models with supervised fine-tuning. For broader settings where only approximate counterfactual pairs can be retrieved, we optimize models with reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards based on downstream benchmark correctness. We further augment training with synthetic reasoning traces that provide causally plausible explanations for local counterfactual transitions. Using this pipeline, we train language models under 10B parameters, including Qwen3.5-9B, and evaluate them on clinical trial outcome prediction. We aim to show that DeepImagine consistently improves over untuned language models and traditional correlational baselines. Finally, we aim to show that the learned reasoning trajectories provide interpretable signals about how models represent trial-level mechanisms, suggesting a practical path toward more mechanistic and scientifically useful biomedical language models.

Causal graphs in text are typically populated by observable, predefined events. In contrast, we study implicit causal graph construction from text by treating each described cause-effect pair as the begin- and endpoint of an underlying latent causal graph and using large language models (LLMs) to infer intermediate causal events. We compare end-to-end graph construction with methods that frame the task as causal chain discovery. In the latter, graphs are built either by aggregating inferred chains or by progressively expanding partial chains through an iterative search process. We further explore Wisdom of the Crowd extensions that access causal knowledge from multiple LLMs in post-hoc aggregation and collaborative inference settings. We analyze trade-offs among these approaches and evaluate the validity of inferred causal relations using a manually curated database of 1,560 scientifically validated causal pairs. This database-based evaluation is proposed as reliable, resource-efficient, and transferable to settings where ground-truth graphs are unavailable.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate toxic content, posing significant risks for safe deployment. Current mitigation strategies often degrade generation quality or require costly human annotation. We propose CAUSALDETOX, a framework that identifies and intervenes on the specific attention heads causally responsible for toxic generation. Using the Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS), we isolate a minimal set of heads that are necessary and sufficient for toxicity. We utilize these components via two complementary strategies: (1) Local Inference-Time Intervention, which constructs dynamic, input-specific steering vectors for context-aware detoxification, and (2) PNS-Guided Fine-Tuning, which permanently unlearns toxic representations. We also introduce PARATOX, a novel benchmark of aligned toxic/non-toxic sentence pairs enabling controlled counterfactual evaluation. Experiments on ToxiGen, ImplicitHate, and ParaDetox show that CAUSALDETOX achieves up to 5.34% greater toxicity reduction compared to baselines while preserving linguistic fluency, and offers a 7x speedup in head selection.

Although large language models (LLMs) excel in complex reasoning tasks, they suffer from severe causal hallucination in event causality identification (ECI), particularly in smaller models ($\leq$1.5B parameters). A promising approach to address this issue is to fine-tune them with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces. However, there is currently a lack of CoT trace dataset available for ECI. In this paper, we first investigate the essential criteria that effective CoT traces should possess to mitigate causal hallucination in smaller models. We then design a pipeline to generate CoT traces that meet these criteria. Moreover, since there is currently no metric for quantifying causal hallucination, we also introduce a new metric, the Causal Hallucination Rate (CHR), to quantify causal hallucination, guide the formulation of effective CoT trace criteria, and validate the effectiveness of our pipeline. Our experiments show that fine-tuning with the CoT traces generated by our pipeline not only substantially reduces causal hallucination in smaller LLMs but also improves mean accuracy. Moreover, the fine-tuned models exhibit strong cross-dataset and cross-difficulty generalization, as well as robustness under misleading intervention prompts.

Clinical case formulation organizes patient symptoms and psychosocial factors into causal models, often using the 5P framework. However, constructing such graphs from therapy transcripts is time consuming and varies across clinicians. We present InsightFlow, an LLM based approach that automatically generates 5P aligned causal graphs from patient-therapist dialogues. Using 46 psychotherapy intake transcripts annotated by clinical experts, we evaluate LLM generated graphs against human formulations using structural (NetSimile), semantic (embedding similarity), and expert rated clinical criteria. The generated graphs show structural similarity comparable to inter annotator agreement and high semantic alignment with human graphs. Expert evaluations rate the outputs as moderately complete, consistent, and clinically useful. While LLM graphs tend to form more interconnected structures compared to the chain like patterns of human graphs, overall complexity and content coverage are similar. These results suggest that LLMs can produce clinically meaningful case formulation graphs within the natural variability of expert practice. InsightFlow highlights the potential of automated causal modeling to augment clinical workflows, with future work needed to improve temporal reasoning and reduce redundancy.

Contextual causal reasoning is a critical yet challenging capability for Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing benchmarks, however, often evaluate this skill in fragmented settings, failing to ensure context consistency or cover the full causal hierarchy. To address this, we pioneer METER to systematically benchmark LLMs across all three levels of the causal ladder under a unified context setting. Our extensive evaluation of various LLMs reveals a significant decline in proficiency as tasks ascend the causal hierarchy. To diagnose this degradation, we conduct a deep mechanistic analysis via both error pattern identification and internal information flow tracing. Our analysis reveals two primary failure modes: (1) LLMs are susceptible to distraction by causally irrelevant but factually correct information at lower level of causality; and (2) as tasks ascend the causal hierarchy, faithfulness to the provided context degrades, leading to a reduced performance. We belive our work advances our understanding of the mechanisms behind LLM contextual causal reasoning and establishes a critical foundation for future research. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/SCUNLP/METER .

Narrative understanding requires multidimensional semantic structures. This study investigates whether BERT embeddings encode dimensions of fictional narrative semantics -- time, space, causality, and character. Using an LLM to accelerate annotation, we construct a token-level dataset labeled with these four narrative categories plus "others." A linear probe on BERT embeddings (94% accuracy) significantly outperforms a control probe on variance-matched random embeddings (47%), confirming that BERT encodes meaningful narrative information. With balanced class weighting, the probe achieves a macro-average recall of 0.83, with moderate success on rare categories such as causality (recall = 0.75) and space (recall = 0.66). However, confusion matrix analysis reveals "Boundary Leakage," where rare dimensions are systematically misclassified as "others." Clustering analysis shows that unsupervised clustering aligns near-randomly with predefined categories (ARI = 0.081), suggesting that narrative dimensions are encoded but not as discretely separable clusters. Future work includes a POS-only baseline to disentangle syntactic patterns from narrative encoding, expanded datasets, and layer-wise probing.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for causal and counterfactual reasoning, yet their reliability in real-world policy evaluation remains underexplored. We construct a benchmark of 40 empirical policy evaluation cases drawn from economics and social science, each grounded in peer-reviewed evidence and classified by intuitiveness -- whether the empirical finding aligns with (obvious), is unclear relative to (ambiguous), or contradicts (counter-intuitive) common prior expectations. We evaluate four frontier LLMs across five prompting strategies with 8,000 experimental trials and analyze the results using mixed-effects logistic regression. Our findings reveal three key results: (1) a chain-of-thought (CoT) paradox, where chain-of-thought prompting dramatically improves performance on obvious cases but this benefit is substantially attenuated on counter-intuitive ones (interaction OR = 0.278, $p < 0.001$); (2) intuitiveness as the dominant factor, with case-level variance exceeding that of model choice or prompting strategy (ICC = 0.671); and (3) a knowledge-reasoning dissociation, where citation-based familiarity is unrelated to accuracy ($p = 0.84$), suggesting models possess relevant knowledge but fail to reason with it when findings contradict intuition. We frame these results through the lens of dual-process theory (System 1 vs. System 2) and argue that current LLMs' "slow thinking" achieves only partial inhibition of intuitive priors -- producing the form of deliberative reasoning without fully delivering its substance.

Large language models (LLMs) enable waveform-to-text ECG interpretation and interactive clinical questioning, yet most ECG-LLM systems still rely on weak signal-text alignment and retrieval without explicit physiological or causal structure. This limits grounding, temporal reasoning, and counterfactual "what-if" analysis central to clinical decision-making. We propose CARE-ECG, a causally structured ECG-language reasoning framework that unifies representation learning, diagnosis, and explanation in a single pipeline. CARE-ECG encodes multi-lead ECGs into temporally organized latent biomarkers, performs causal graph inference for probabilistic diagnosis, and supports counterfactual assessment via structural causal models. To improve faithfulness, CARE-ECG grounds language outputs through causal retrieval-augmented generation and a modular agentic pipeline that integrates history, diagnosis, and response with verification. Across multiple ECG benchmarks and expert QA settings, CARE-ECG improves diagnostic accuracy and explanation faithfulness while reducing hallucinations (e.g., 0.84 accuracy on Expert-ECG-QA and 0.76 on SCP-mapped PTB-XL under GPT-4). Overall, CARE-ECG provides traceable reasoning by exposing key latent drivers, causal evidence paths, and how alternative physiological states would change outcomes.

Large Language Models (LLMs) still suffer from severe hallucinations and catastrophic forgetting during causal reasoning over massive, fragmented long contexts. Existing memory mechanisms typically treat retrieval as a static, single-step passive matching process, leading to severe semantic dilution and contextual fragmentation. To overcome these fundamental bottlenecks, we propose MemCoT, a test-time memory scaling framework that redefines the reasoning process by transforming long-context reasoning into an iterative, stateful information search. MemCoT introduces a multi-view long-term memory perception module that enables Zoom-In evidence localization and Zoom-Out contextual expansion, allowing the model to first identify where relevant evidence resides and then reconstruct the surrounding causal structure necessary for reasoning. In addition, MemCoT employs a task-conditioned dual short-term memory system composed of semantic state memory and episodic trajectory memory. This short-term memory records historical search decisions and dynamically guides query decomposition and pruning across iterations. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that MemCoT establishes a state-of-the-art performance. Empowered by MemCoT, several open- and closed-source models achieve SOTA performance on the LoCoMo benchmark and LongMemEval-S benchmark.

Attribution theory explains how individuals interpret and attribute others' behavior in a social context by employing personal (dispositional) and impersonal (situational) causality. Large Language Models (LLMs), trained on human-generated corpora, may implicitly mimic this social attribution process in social contexts. However, the extent to which LLMs utilize these causal attributions in their reasoning remains underexplored. Although using reasoning paradigms, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), has shown promising results in various tasks, ignoring social attribution in reasoning could lead to biased responses by LLMs in social contexts. In this study, we investigate the impact of incorporating a user's goal as knowledge to infer dispositional causality and message context to infer situational causality on LLM performance. To this end, we introduce a scalable method to mitigate such biases by enriching the instruction prompts for LLMs with two prompt aids using social-attribution knowledge, based on the context and goal of a social media message. This method improves the model performance while reducing the social-attribution bias of the LLM in the reasoning on zero-shot classification tasks for behavior analytics applications. We empirically show the benefits of our method across two tasks-intent detection and theme detection on social media in the disaster domain-when considering the variability of disaster types and multiple languages of social media. Our experiments highlight the biases of three open-source LLMs: Llama3, Mistral, and Gemma, toward social attribution, and show the effectiveness of our mitigation strategies.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have enabled interpretable medical diagnosis by integrating visual perception with linguistic reasoning. Yet, existing medical chain-of-thought (CoT) models lack explicit mechanisms to represent and enforce causal reasoning, leaving them vulnerable to spurious correlations and limiting their clinical reliability. We pinpoint three core challenges in medical CoT reasoning: how to adaptively trigger causal correction, construct high-quality causal-spurious contrastive samples, and maintain causal consistency across reasoning trajectories. To address these challenges, we propose MedCausalX, an end-to-end framework explicitly models causal reasoning chains in medical VLMs. We first introduce the CRMed dataset providing fine-grained anatomical annotations, structured causal reasoning chains, and counterfactual variants that guide the learning of causal relationships beyond superficial correlations. Building upon CRMed, MedCausalX employs a two-stage adaptive reflection architecture equipped with $\langle$causal$\rangle$ and $\langle$verify$\rangle$ tokens, enabling the model to autonomously determine when and how to perform causal analysis and verification. Finally, a trajectory-level causal correction objective optimized through error-attributed reinforcement learning refines the reasoning chain, allowing the model to distinguish genuine causal dependencies from shortcut associations. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks show that MedCausalX consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, improving diagnostic consistency by +5.4 points, reducing hallucination by over 10 points, and attaining top spatial grounding IoU, thereby setting a new standard for causally grounded medical reasoning. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/zhcz328/MedCausalX.

Understanding why real-world events occur is important for both natural language processing and practical decision-making, yet direct-cause inference remains underexplored in evidence-rich settings. To address this gap, we organized SemEval-2026 Task 12: Abductive Event Reasoning (AER).\footnote{The task data is available at https://github.com/sooo66/semeval2026-task12-dataset.git} The task asks systems to identify the most plausible direct cause of a target event from supporting evidence. We formulate AER as an evidence-grounded multiple-choice benchmark that captures key challenges of real-world causal reasoning, including distributed evidence, indirect background factors, and semantically related but non-causal distractors. The shared task attracted 122 participants and received 518 submissions. This paper presents the task formulation, dataset construction pipeline, evaluation setup, and system results. AER provides a focused benchmark for abductive reasoning over real-world events and highlights challenges for future work on causal reasoning and multi-document understanding.