Title: Ice Cream Doesn’t Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference
Primary area: datasets and benchmarks
Keywords: Large Language Model, Causal inference

Abstract: Reliable causal inference is essential for making decisions in high-stakes areas like medicine, economics, and public policy. However, it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can handle rigorous and trustworthy \textit{statistical causal inference}. Current benchmarks usually involve simplified tasks. For example, these tasks might only ask LLMs to identify semantic causal relationships or draw conclusions directly from raw data. As a result, models may overlook important statistical pitfalls, such as Simpson’s paradox or selection bias. This oversight limits the applicability of LLMs in the real world.
To address these limitations, we propose \textbf{CausalPitfalls}, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the capability of LLMs in overcoming common causal inference pitfalls. Our benchmark features structured challenges across multiple difficulty levels, each paired with grading rubrics. This approach allows us to quantitatively measure both causal reasoning capabilities and the reliability of LLMs' responses. We evaluate models using two protocols: (1) direct prompting, which assesses intrinsic causal reasoning, and (2) code-assisted prompting, where models generate executable code for explicit statistical analysis. Additionally, we validate the effectiveness of this judge by comparing its scoring with assessments from human experts.
Our results reveal significant limitations in current LLMs when performing statistical causal inference. The CausalPitfalls benchmark provides essential guidance and quantitative metrics to advance the development of trustworthy causal reasoning systems.

TL;DR: We present CausalPitfalls, a benchmark that systematically evaluates LLMs' reliability in causal inference, revealing how models can fall into statistical traps like Simpson’s or Berkson's paradoxes, even when their answers appear accurate.