The DOI matches its DataCite record.
COLD: Causal reasOning in cLosed Daily activities
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown state-of-the-art performance in a variety of tasks, including arithmetic and reasoning; however, to gauge the intellectual capabilities of LLMs, causal reasoning has become a reliable proxy for validating a general understanding of the mechanics and intricacies of the world similar to humans. Previous works in natural language processing (NLP) have either focused on open-ended causal reasoning via causal commonsense reasoning (CCR) or framed a symbolic representation-based question answering for theoretically backed-up analysis via a causal inference engine. The former adds an advantage of real-world grounding but lacks theoretically backed-up analysis/validation, whereas the latter is far from real-world grounding. In this work, we bridge this gap by proposing the COLD (Causal reasOning in cLosed Daily activities) framework, which is built upon human understanding of daily real-world activities to reason about the causal nature of events. We show that the proposed framework facilitates the creation of enormous causal queries (~ 9 million) and comes close to the mini-turing test, simulating causal reasoning to evaluate the understanding of a daily real-world task. We evaluate multiple LLMs on the created causal queries and find that causal reasoning is challenging even for activities trivial to humans. We further explore (the causal reasoning abilities of LLMs) using the backdoor criterion to determine the causal strength between events.
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 Joshi et al., 2024
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
“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).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Joshi, A., Ahmad, A., & Modi, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 5145-5187
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.19500
- OpenAlex
- W4415798692
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- DeepMind
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- causal reasoning, closed-world reasoning, daily activities
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