Understanding the intricate motivations behind human actions is paramount in developing sophisticated systems capable of nuanced behavior analysis.

Genuine human-like causal reasoning is fundamental for strong artificial intelligence. Humans typically identify whether an event is part of the causal chain first, and then influenced by modulatory factors such as morality, normality, and intention to make the final judgment. These two stages naturally map to the fields of 1) actual causality that provides formalisms for causal chain membership and 2) causal judgment from cognitive science that studies psychological modulators that influence causal selection. However, these two domains have largely been studied in isolation, leaving a gap for a systematic method based on LLMs. Therefore, we introduce HCR-Reasoner, a framework that systematically integrates the theory of actual causality and causal judgment into LLMs for human-like causal reasoning. It simulates humans by using actual causality formalisms to filter for structurally necessary candidate causes and causal judgment factors to determine the psychologically selected cause. For fine-grained evaluation, we introduce HCR-Bench, a challenging benchmark with 1,093 annotated instances with detailed reasoning steps. Results show HCR-Reasoner consistently and significantly improves LLMs' causal alignment with humans, and that explicitly integrating theory-guided reasoning into LLMs is highly effective for achieving faithful human-like causal reasoning.

How does a cause lead to an effect, and which intermediate causal steps explain their connection? This work scrutinizes the mechanistic causal reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to answer these questions through the task of implicit causal chain discovery. In a diagnostic evaluation framework, we instruct nine LLMs to generate all possible intermediate causal steps linking given cause-effect pairs in causal chain structures. These pairs are drawn from recent resources in argumentation studies featuring polarized discussion on climate change. Our analysis reveals that LLMs vary in the number and granularity of causal steps they produce. Although they are generally self-consistent and confident about the intermediate causal connections in the generated chains, their judgments are mainly driven by associative pattern matching rather than genuine causal reasoning. Nonetheless, human evaluations confirmed the logical coherence and integrity of the generated chains. Our baseline causal chain discovery approach, insights from our diagnostic evaluation, and benchmark dataset with causal chains lay a solid foundation for advancing future work in implicit, mechanistic causal reasoning in argumentation settings.

In manufacturing systems, identifying the causes of failures is crucial for maintaining and improving production efficiency. In knowledge-based failure-cause inference, it is important that the knowledge base (1) explicitly structures knowledge about the target system and about failures, and (2) contains sufficiently long causal chains of failures. In this study, we constructed Diagnostic Knowledge Ontology and proposed a Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) model-based maintenance-record accumulation method based on it. Failure-cause inference using the maintenance records accumulated by the proposed method showed better agreement with the set of candidate causes enumerated by experts, especially in difficult cases where the number of related cases is small and the vocabulary used differs. In the future, it will be necessary to develop inference methods tailored to these maintenance records, build a user interface, and carry out validation on larger and more diverse systems. Additionally, this approach leverages the understanding and knowledge of the target in the design phase to support knowledge accumulation and problem solving during the maintenance phase, and it is expected to become a foundation for knowledge sharing across the entire engineering chain in the future.

Understanding the intricate motivations behind human actions is paramount in developing sophisticated systems capable of nuanced behavior analysis.

Causal reasoning is essential for understanding decision-making about the behaviour of complex `ecosystems' of systems that underpin modern society, with security -- including issues around correctness, safety, resilience, etc. -- typically providing critical examples. We present a theory of strategic reasoning about system modelling based on minimal structural assumptions and employing the methods of transition systems, supported by a modal logic of system states in the tradition of van Benthem, Hennessy, and Milner, and validated through equivalence theorems. Our framework introduces an intervention operator and a separating conjunction to capture actual causal relationships between component systems of the ecosystem, aligning naturally with Halpern and Pearl's counterfactual approach based on Structural Causal Models. We illustrate the applicability through examples of of decision-making about microservices in distributed systems. We discuss localized decision-making through a separating conjunction. This work unifies a formal, minimalistic notion of system behaviour with a Halpern--Pearl-compatible theory of counterfactual reasoning, providing a logical foundation for studying decision making about causality in complex interacting systems.

Language is not only a tool for communication but also a medium for human cognition and reasoning. If, as linguistic relativity suggests, the structure of language shapes cognitive patterns, then large language models (LLMs) trained on human language may also internalize the habitual logical structures embedded in different languages. To examine this hypothesis, we introduce BICAUSE, a structured bilingual dataset for causal reasoning, which includes semantically aligned Chinese and English samples in both forward and reversed causal forms. Our study reveals three key findings: (1) LLMs exhibit typologically aligned attention patterns, focusing more on causes and sentence-initial connectives in Chinese, while showing a more balanced distribution in English. (2) Models internalize language-specific preferences for causal word order and often rigidly apply them to atypical inputs, leading to degraded performance, especially in Chinese. (3) When causal reasoning succeeds, model representations converge toward semantically aligned abstractions across languages, indicating a shared understanding beyond surface form. Overall, these results suggest that LLMs not only mimic surface linguistic forms but also internalize the reasoning biases shaped by language. Rooted in cognitive linguistic theory, this phenomenon is for the first time empirically verified through structural analysis of model internals.

Large language models (LLMs) have mastered abundant simple and explicit commonsense knowledge through pre-training, enabling them to achieve human-like performance in simple commonsense reasoning. Nevertheless, LLMs struggle to reason with complex and implicit commonsense knowledge that is derived from simple ones (such as understanding the long-term effects of certain events), an aspect humans tend to focus on more. Existing works focus on complex tasks like math and code, while complex commonsense reasoning remains underexplored due to its uncertainty and lack of structure. To fill this gap and align with real-world concerns, we propose a benchmark Com$^2$ focusing on complex commonsense reasoning. We first incorporate causal event graphs to serve as structured complex commonsense. Then we adopt causal theory~(e.g., intervention) to modify the causal event graphs and obtain different scenarios that meet human concerns. Finally, an LLM is employed to synthesize examples with slow thinking, which is guided by the logical relationships in the modified causal graphs. Furthermore, we use detective stories to construct a more challenging subset. Experiments show that LLMs struggle in reasoning depth and breadth, while post-training and slow thinking can alleviate this. The code and data are available at https://github.com/Waste-Wood/Com2.

"Read the room" is a significant social reasoning capability in human daily life. Humans can infer others' mental states from subtle social cues. Previous social reasoning tasks and datasets lack complexity (e.g., simple scenes, basic interactions, incomplete mental state variables, single-step reasoning, etc.) and fall far short of the challenges present in real-life social interactions. In this paper, we contribute a valuable, high-quality, and comprehensive video dataset named R^3-VQA with precise and fine-grained annotations of social events and mental states (i.e., belief, intent, desire, and emotion) as well as corresponding social causal chains in complex social scenarios. Moreover, we include human-annotated and model-generated QAs. Our task R^3-VQA includes three aspects: Social Event Understanding, Mental State Estimation, and Social Causal Reasoning. As a benchmark, we comprehensively evaluate the social reasoning capabilities and consistencies of current state-of-the-art large vision-language models (LVLMs). Comprehensive experiments show that (i) LVLMs are still far from human-level consistent social reasoning in complex social scenarios; (ii) Theory of Mind (ToM) prompting can help LVLMs perform better on social reasoning tasks. We provide some of our dataset and codes in supplementary material and will release our full dataset and codes upon acceptance.