The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty in Causality: A New Frontier
Open accessAbstract
Understanding uncertainty in causality is vital in various domains, including core NLP tasks like event causality extraction, commonsense reasoning, and counterfactual text generation.However, existing literature lacks a comprehensive examination of this area.This survey aims to fill this gap by thoroughly reviewing the uncertainty in causality.We first introduce a novel trichotomy, categorizing causal uncertainty into aleatoric (inherent randomness in causal data), epistemic (causal model limitations), and ontological (existence of causal links) uncertainty.We then survey methods for quantifying uncertainty in causal analysis and highlight the complementary relationship between causal uncertainty and causal strength.Furthermore, we examine the challenges that large language models (LLMs) face in handling causal uncertainty, such as hallucinations and inconsistencies, and propose key traits for an optimal causal LLM.Our paper reviews current approaches and outlines future research directions, aiming to serve as a practical guide for researchers and practitioners in this emerging field.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Causal relationships within the complex real world involve delayed outcomes and cascading effects.
“Causal relationships within the complex real world involve delayed outcomes and cascading effects (Joshi et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025f).”
From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Cui et al., 2025
Citations
Cites
e-CARE: a New Dataset for Exploring Explainable Causal Reasoning
Du, L., Ding, X. H., Xiong, K., Liu, T., & Qin, B. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.33 · Cited by 61
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3
Uncertainty-Aware Iterative Graph Reasoning for Document Event Causality Identification
Ni, J., & Guo, Y. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp55912.2026.11464995
Metadata
- Authors
- Cui, S., Mouchel, L., & Faltings, B.
- Affiliations
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 8022-8044
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4412945632
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- causal uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty, epistemic uncertainty, ontological uncertainty, causal strength, hallucinations, causal reasoning, commonsense reasoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review