Building machines that can reason about physical events and their causal relationships is crucial for flexible interaction with the physical world.

Causal reasoning capability is critical in advancing large language models (LLMs) towards artificial general intelligence (AGI). While versatile LLMs appear to have demonstrated capabilities in understanding contextual causality and providing responses that obey the laws of causality, it remains unclear whether they perform genuine causal reasoning akin to humans. However, current evidence indicates the contrary. Specifically, LLMs are only capable of performing shallow (level-1) causal reasoning, primarily attributed to the causal knowledge embedded in their parameters, but they lack the capacity for genuine human-like (level-2) causal reasoning. To support this hypothesis, methodologically, we delve into the autoregression mechanism of transformer-based LLMs, revealing that it is not inherently causal.

The ability to perform causal reasoning is widely considered a core feature of intelligence. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can coherently reason about causality. Much of the existing work in natural language processing (NLP) focuses on evaluating causal reasoning in LLMs, thus failing to assess whether a model can perform causal inference in accordance with a set of well-defined . To address this, we propose a new NLP task,, inspired by the postulated by Judea Pearl et al. We compose a large dataset, CLadder, with 10K samples: based on a collection of causal graphs and queries (associational, interventional, and counterfactual), we obtain symbolic questions and ground-truth answers, through an oracle causal inference engine. These are then translated into natural language. We evaluate multiple LLMs on our dataset, and we introduce and evaluate a bespoke chain-of-thought prompting strategy, CausalCoT. We show that our task is highly challenging for LLMs, and we conduct an in-depth analysis to gain deeper insight into the causal reasoning abilities of LLMs.

Adversarial contrastive learning (ACL) is a technique that enhances standard contrastive learning (SCL) by incorporating adversarial data to learn a robust representation that can withstand adversarial attacks and common corruptions without requiring costly annotations. To improve transferability, the existing work introduced the standard invariant regularization (SIR) to impose style-independence property to SCL, which can exempt the impact of nuisance style factors in the standard representation. However, it is unclear how the style-independence property benefits ACL-learned robust representations. In this paper, we leverage the technique of causal reasoning to interpret the ACL and propose adversarial invariant regularization (AIR) to enforce independence from style factors. We regulate the ACL using both SIR and AIR to output the robust representation. Theoretically, we show that AIR implicitly encourages the representational distance between different views of natural data and their adversarial variants to be independent of style factors. Empirically, our experimental results show that invariant regularization significantly improves the performance of state-of-the-art ACL methods in terms of both standard generalization and robustness on downstream tasks. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to apply causal reasoning to interpret ACL and develop AIR for enhancing ACL-learned robust representations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown state-of-the-art performance in a variety of tasks, including arithmetic and reasoning; however, to gauge the intellectual capabilities of LLMs, causal reasoning has become a reliable proxy for validating a general understanding of the mechanics and intricacies of the world similar to humans. Previous works in natural language processing (NLP) have either focused on open-ended causal reasoning via causal commonsense reasoning (CCR) or framed a symbolic representation-based question answering for theoretically backed-up analysis via a causal inference engine. The former adds an advantage of real-world grounding but lacks theoretically backed-up analysis/validation, whereas the latter is far from real-world grounding. In this work, we bridge this gap by proposing the COLD (Causal reasOning in cLosed Daily activities) framework, which is built upon human understanding of daily real-world activities to reason about the causal nature of events. We show that the proposed framework facilitates the creation of enormous causal queries ( 9 million) and comes close to the mini-turing test, simulating causal reasoning to evaluate the understanding of a daily real-world task. We evaluate multiple LLMs on the created causal queries and find that causal reasoning is challenging even for activities trivial to humans. We further explore (the causal reasoning abilities of LLMs) using the backdoor criterion to determine the causal strength between events.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) have recently shown significant advancements in video understanding, especially in feature alignment, event reasoning, and instruction-following tasks. However, their capability for counterfactual reasoning, inferring alternative outcomes under hypothetical conditions, remains underexplored. This capability is essential for robust video understanding, as it requires identifying underlying causal structures and reasoning about unobserved possibilities, rather than merely recognizing observed patterns. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce CounterVQA, a video-based benchmark featuring three progressive difficulty levels that assess different aspects of counterfactual reasoning. Through comprehensive evaluation of both state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source models, we uncover a substantial performance gap: while these models achieve reasonable accuracy on simple counterfactual questions, performance degrades significantly on complex multi-hop causal chains. To address these limitations, we develop a post-training method, CFGPT, that enhances a model's visual counterfactual reasoning ability by distilling its counterfactual reasoning capability from the language modality, yielding consistent improvements across all CounterVQA difficulty levels. Dataset and code will be further released.

However, current evidence indicates the contrary.

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

While large language models have transformed how we interact with AI systems, they have a critical weakness: they confidently state false information that sounds entirely plausible. This "hallucination" problem has become a major barrier to using these models where accuracy matters most. Existing solutions either require retraining the entire model, add significant computational costs, or miss the root causes of why these hallucinations occur in the first place. We present CausalGuard, a new approach that combines causal reasoning with symbolic logic to catch and prevent hallucinations as they happen. Unlike previous methods that only check outputs after generation, our system understands the causal chain that leads to false statements and intervenes early in the process. CausalGuard works through two complementary paths: one that traces causal relationships between what the model knows and what it generates, and another that checks logical consistency using automated reasoning. Testing across twelve different benchmarks, we found that CausalGuard correctly identifies hallucinations 89.3\% of the time while missing only 8.3\% of actual hallucinations. More importantly, it reduces false claims by nearly 80\% while keeping responses natural and helpful. The system performs especially well on complex reasoning tasks where multiple steps of logic are required. Because CausalGuard shows its reasoning process, it works well in sensitive areas like medical diagnosis or financial analysis where understanding why a decision was made matters as much as the decision itself.