We introduce a new paradigm for building large causal models (LCMs) that exploits the enormous potential latent in today's large language models (LLMs). We describe our ongoing experiments with an implemented system called DEMOCRITUS (Decentralized Extraction of Manifold Ontologies of Causal Relations Integrating Topos Universal Slices) aimed at building, organizing, and visualizing LCMs that span disparate domains extracted from carefully targeted textual queries to LLMs. DEMOCRITUS is methodologically distinct from traditional narrow domain and hypothesis centered causal inference that builds causal models from experiments that produce numerical data. A high-quality LLM is used to propose topics, generate causal questions, and extract plausible causal statements from a diverse range of domains. The technical challenge is then to take these isolated, fragmented, potentially ambiguous and possibly conflicting causal claims, and weave them into a coherent whole, converting them into relational causal triples and embedding them into a LCM. Addressing this technical challenge required inventing new categorical machine learning methods, which we can only briefly summarize in this paper, as it is focused more on the systems side of building DEMOCRITUS. We describe the implementation pipeline for DEMOCRITUS comprising of six modules, examine its computational cost profile to determine where the current bottlenecks in scaling the system to larger models. We describe the results of using DEMOCRITUS over a wide range of domains, spanning archaeology, biology, climate change, economics, medicine and technology. We discuss the limitations of the current DEMOCRITUS system, and outline directions for extending its capabilities.

The transition to prescriptive maintenance in manufacturing is critically constrained by a dependence on predictive models. These models tend to rely on spurious correlations rather than identifying the true causal drivers of failures, often leading to costly misdiagnoses and ineffective interventions. This fundamental limitation results in a key-challenge: while we can predict that a failure may occur, we lack a systematic method to understand why a failure occurs, thereby providing the basis for identifying the most effective intervention. This paper proposes a model based on causal machine learning to bridge this gap. Our objective is to move beyond diagnosis to active prescription by simulating and evaluating potential fixes toward optimizing KPIs such as Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). For this purpose a pre-trained causal foundation model is used as a "what-if" model to estimate the effects of potential fixes. By measuring the causal effect of each intervention on system-level KPIs, it provides a data-driven ranking of actions to recommend at the production line. This process not only identifies root causes but also quantifies their operational impact. The model is evaluated using semi-synthetic manufacturing data and compared with a baseline machine learning model. This paper sets the technical basis for a robust prescriptive maintenance framework, allowing engineers to test potential solutions in a causal environment to make more effective operational decisions and reduce costly downtimes.

This study evaluates causal reasoning in large language models (LLMs) using 99 clinically grounded laboratory test scenarios aligned with Pearl's Ladder of Causation: association, intervention, and counterfactual reasoning. We examined common laboratory tests such as hemoglobin A1c, creatinine, and vitamin D, and paired them with relevant causal factors including age, gender, obesity, and smoking. Two LLMs - GPT-o1 and Llama-3.2-8b-instruct - were tested, with responses evaluated by four medically trained human experts. GPT-o1 demonstrated stronger discriminative performance (AUROC overall = 0.80 +/- 0.12) compared to Llama-3.2-8b-instruct (0.73 +/- 0.15), with higher scores across association (0.75 vs 0.72), intervention (0.84 vs 0.70), and counterfactual reasoning (0.84 vs 0.69). Sensitivity (0.90 vs 0.84) and specificity (0.93 vs 0.80) were also greater for GPT-o1, with reasoning ratings showing similar trends. Both models performed best on intervention questions and worst on counterfactuals, particularly in altered outcome scenarios. These findings suggest GPT-o1 provides more consistent causal reasoning, but refinement is required before adoption in high-stakes clinical applications.

In a changing climate, sustainable agriculture is essential for food security and environmental health. However, it is challenging to understand the complex interactions among its biophysical, social, and economic components. Predictive machine learning (ML), with its capacity to learn from data, is leveraged in sustainable agriculture for applications like yield prediction and weather forecasting. Nevertheless, it cannot explain causal mechanisms and remains descriptive rather than prescriptive. To address this gap, we propose causal ML, which merges ML's data processing with causality's ability to reason about change. This facilitates quantifying intervention impacts for evidence-based decision-making and enhances predictive model robustness. We showcase causal ML through eight diverse applications that benefit stakeholders across the agri-food chain, including farmers, policymakers, and researchers.

Causal inference methods for observational data are increasingly recognized as a valuable complement to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). They can, under strong assumptions, emulate RCTs or help refine their focus. Our approach to causal inference uses causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We are motivated by a concern that many observational studies in medicine begin without a clear definition of their objectives, without awareness of the scientific potential, and without tools to identify the necessary in itinere adjustments. We present and illustrate methods that provide "midway insights" during study's course, identify meaningful causal questions within the study's reach and point to the necessary data base enhancements for these questions to be meaningfully tackled. The method hinges on concepts of identification and positivity. Concepts are illustrated through an analysis of data generated by patients with aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (aSAH) halfway through a study, focusing in particular on the consequences of external ventricular drain (EVD) in strata of the aSAH population. In addition, we propose a method for multicenter studies, to monitor the impact of changes in practice at an individual center's level, by leveraging principles of instrumental variable (IV) inference.

The validity of medical studies based on real-world clinical data, such as observational studies, depends on critical assumptions necessary for drawing causal conclusions about medical interventions. Many published studies are flawed because they violate these assumptions and entail biases such as residual confounding, selection bias, and misalignment between treatment and measurement times. Although researchers are aware of these pitfalls, they continue to occur because anticipating and addressing them in the context of a specific study can be challenging without a large, often unwieldy, interdisciplinary team with extensive expertise. To address this expertise gap, we explore the use of large language models (LLMs) as co-pilot tools to assist researchers in identifying study design flaws that undermine the validity of causal inferences. We propose a conceptual framework for LLMs as causal co-pilots that encode domain knowledge across various fields, engaging with researchers in natural language interactions to provide contextualized assistance in study design. We provide illustrative examples of how LLMs can function as causal co-pilots, propose a structured framework for their grounding in existing causal inference frameworks, and highlight the unique challenges and opportunities in adapting LLMs for reliable use in epidemiological research.

The intersection of medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA) is a challenging research topic with advantages including patient engagement and clinical expert involvement for second opinions. However, existing Med-VQA methods based on joint embedding fail to explain whether their provided results are based on correct reasoning or coincidental answers, which undermines the credibility of VQA answers. In this paper, we investigate the construction of a more cohesive and stable Med-VQA structure. Motivated by causal effect, we propose a novel Triangular Reasoning VQA (Tri-VQA) framework, which constructs reverse causal questions from the perspective of "Why this answer?" to elucidate the source of the answer and stimulate more reasonable forward reasoning processes. We evaluate our method on the Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) multi-attribute annotated dataset from five centers, and test it on medical VQA datasets. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our approach over existing methods. Our codes and pre-trained models are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Tri_VQA.

Humans have an innate drive to seek out causality. Whether fuelled by curiosity or specific goals, we constantly question why things happen, how they are interconnected, and many other related phenomena. To develop AI agents capable of addressing this natural human quest for causality, we urgently need a comprehensive dataset of natural causal questions. Unfortunately, existing datasets either contain only artificially-crafted questions that do not reflect real AI usage scenarios or have limited coverage of questions from specific sources. To address this gap, we present CausalQuest, a dataset of 13,500 naturally occurring questions sourced from social networks, search engines, and AI assistants. We formalize the definition of causal questions and establish a taxonomy for finer-grained classification. Through a combined effort of human annotators and large language models (LLMs), we carefully label the dataset. We find that 42% of the questions humans ask are indeed causal, with the majority seeking to understand the causes behind given effects. Using this dataset, we train efficient classifiers (up to 2.85B parameters) for the binary task of identifying causal questions, achieving high performance with F1 scores of up to 0.877. We conclude with a rich set of future research directions that can build upon our data and models.

The discussion on causality in human history dates back to ancient Greece, yet to this day, there is still no consensus. Fundamentally, this stems from the nature of human cognition, as understanding causality requires abstract tools to transcend the limitations of human cognition. In recent decades, the rapid development of mathematical and computational tools has provided new theoretical and technical means for exploring causality, creating more avenues for investigation. Based on this, this paper introduces a new definition of causality using category theory, proposed by Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders Mac Lane in 1945 to avoid the self-referential contradictions in set theory, notably the Russell paradox. Within this framework, the feasibility of indicator synthesis in causal inference is demonstrated. Due to the limitations in the development of category theory-related technical tools, this paper adopts the widely-used probabilistic causal graph tool proposed by Judea Pearl in 1995 to study the application of causal inference in personal credit risk management. The specific work includes: research on the construction method of causal inference index system, definition of causality and feasibility proof of indicator synthesis causal inference within this framework, application methods of causal graph model and intervention alternative criteria in personal credit risk management, and so on.

Causal questions inquire about causal relationships between different events or phenomena. Specifically, they often aim to determine whether there is a relationship between two phenomena, or to identify all causes/effects of a phenomenon. Causal questions are important for a variety of use cases, including virtual assistants and search engines. However, many current approaches to causal question answering cannot provide explanations or evidence for their answers. Hence, in this paper, we aim to answer causal questions with CauseNet, a large-scale dataset of causal relations and their provenance data. Inspired by recent, successful applications of reinforcement learning to knowledge graph tasks, such as link prediction and fact-checking, we explore the application of reinforcement learning on CauseNet for causal question answering. We introduce an Actor-Critic based agent which learns to search through the graph to answer causal questions. We bootstrap the agent with a supervised learning procedure to deal with large action spaces and sparse rewards. Our evaluation shows that the agent successfully prunes the search space to answer binary causal questions by visiting less than 30 nodes per question compared to over 3,000 nodes by a naive breadth-first search. Our ablation study indicates that our supervised learning strategy provides a strong foundation upon which our reinforcement learning agent improves. The paths returned by our agent explain the mechanisms by which a cause produces an effect. Moreover, for each edge on a path, CauseNet stores its original source on the web allowing for easy verification of paths.