Causality is fundamental in human cognition and has drawn attention in diverse research fields. With growing volumes of textual data, discerning causalities within text data is crucial, and causal text mining plays a pivotal role in extracting meaningful patterns. This study conducts comprehensive evaluations of ChatGPT's causal text mining capabilities. Firstly, we introduce a benchmark that extends beyond general English datasets, including domain-specific and non-English datasets. We also provide an evaluation framework to ensure fair comparisons between ChatGPT and previous approaches. Finally, our analysis outlines the limitations and future challenges in employing ChatGPT for causal text mining. Specifically, our analysis reveals that ChatGPT serves as a good starting point for various datasets. However, when equipped with a sufficient amount of training data, previous models still surpass ChatGPT's performance. Additionally, ChatGPT suffers from the tendency to falsely recognize non-causal sequences as causal sequences. These issues become even more pronounced with advanced versions of the model, such as GPT-4. In addition, we highlight the constraints of ChatGPT in handling complex causality types, including both intra/inter-sentential and implicit causality. The model also faces challenges with effectively leveraging in-context learning and domain adaptation. We release our code to support further research and development in this field.

Current causal text mining datasets vary in objectives, data coverage, and annotation schemes. These inconsistent efforts prevent modeling capabilities and fair comparisons of model performance. Furthermore, few datasets include cause-effect span annotations, which are needed for end-to-end causal relation extraction. To address these issues, we propose UniCausal, a unified benchmark for causal text mining across three tasks: (I) Causal Sequence Classification, (II) Cause-Effect Span Detection and (III) Causal Pair Classification. We consolidated and aligned annotations of six high quality, mainly human-annotated, corpora, resulting in a total of 58,720, 12,144 and 69,165 examples for each task respectively. Since the definition of causality can be subjective, our framework was designed to allow researchers to work on some or all datasets and tasks. To create an initial benchmark, we fine-tuned BERT pre-trained language models to each task, achieving 70.10% Binary F1, 52.42% Macro F1, and 84.68% Binary F1 scores respectively.