Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the phenomenon of Causal Caution suppression in large language models (LLMs) when transitioning from academic to practical advisory contexts, revealing a significant drop in Causal Caution maintenance rates from 91.7-100% to just 6.7-18.3%. By employing a self-correction prompt, the researchers were able to restore Causal Caution expression to 71.4-100%, indicating that the suppression is context-dependent rather than a limitation of the models' capabilities. These findings highlight the potential risks of over-reliance on LLMs for decision-making in business and policy, emphasizing the need for governance mechanisms that account for context-sensitive reasoning.
Helpfulness in LLMs can dangerously suppress critical causal reasoning, with Causal Caution plummeting to just 0.5% in practical contexts.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-support roles in business and policy contexts. While prior benchmark studies have primarily evaluated LLMs' causal reasoning capabilities, a more fundamental epistemic dimension has been overlooked: Causal Caution, defined as the propensity to refrain from causal judgment when empirical evidence is insufficient. This study examines the systematic suppression of Causal Caution that occurs when LLMs shift from academic to practical advisory contexts. Using an evaluation rubric inspired by Pearl's Causal Hierarchy (the PCH score), we conducted experiments on four high-performance LLMs -- Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT 5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro -- across 480 trials. Causal Caution maintenance rates were 91.7--100.0% in academic contexts but dropped to 6.7--18.3% in practical advisory contexts (Fisher's exact test, p < .001 across all models). Furthermore, when restricted to practical prompts requesting concrete recommendations or explanatory rationales, only 1 of 200 responses (0.5%) maintained Causal Caution. A brief self-correction prompt -- "Please reconsider this judgment from the perspective of causal relationships" -- restored the expression of Causal Caution to maintenance rates of 71.4--100.0% (McNemar's test, p < .001 across all models). These results suggest that helpfulness-oriented response patterns may suppress the expression of Causal Caution in practical advisory contexts, with important implications for organizational governance. The findings indicate that this suppression reflects context-dependent variation in expression rather than an underlying capability limitation, suggesting that multi-agent architectures that separate proposal generation from causal auditing may offer a promising governance design.
