Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Double Counterfactual Consistency (DCC), a novel inference-time method that assesses and improves the causal reasoning abilities of LLMs without requiring labeled counterfactual data. DCC evaluates an LLM's ability to perform causal intervention and counterfactual prediction by verifying consistency between nested counterfactual statements. Experiments demonstrate that DCC can effectively evaluate and improve the performance of various LLMs on causal reasoning tasks through test-time rejection sampling.
LLMs can reason more causally by simply checking if their counterfactual predictions are consistent, even without any extra training data.
Despite their strong performance on reasoning benchmarks, large language models (LLMs) have proven brittle when presented with counterfactual questions, suggesting weaknesses in their causal reasoning ability. While recent work has demonstrated that labeled counterfactual tasks can be useful benchmarks of LLMs' causal reasoning, producing such data at the scale required to cover the vast potential space of counterfactuals is limited. In this work, we introduce double counterfactual consistency (DCC), a lightweight inference-time method for measuring and guiding the ability of LLMs to reason causally. Without requiring labeled counterfactual data, DCC verifies a model's ability to execute two important elements of causal reasoning: causal intervention and counterfactual prediction. Using DCC, we evaluate the causal reasoning abilities of various leading LLMs across a range of reasoning tasks and interventions. Moreover, we demonstrate the effectiveness of DCC as a training-free test-time rejection sampling criterion and show that it can directly improve performance on reasoning tasks across multiple model families.
Microsoft Research