Causal inference is essential for decision-making but remains challenging for non-experts. While large language models (LLMs) show promise in this domain, their precise causal estimation capabilities are still limited, and the impact of post-training on these abilities is insufficiently explored. This paper examines the extent to which post-training can enhance LLMs’ capacity for causal inference. We introduce CausalGym, a comprehensive dataset comprising seven core causal tasks for training and five diverse test sets. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate five post-training approaches: SFT, DPO, KTO, PPO, and GRPO. Across five in-domain and four existing benchmarks, our experiments demonstrate that appropriate post-training enables smaller LLMs to perform causal inference competitively, often surpassing much larger models. Our 14B-parameter model achieves 93.5% accuracy on the CaLM benchmark, compared to 55.4% by OpenAI o3. Furthermore, the post-trained LLMs exhibit strong generalization and robustness under real-world conditions such as distribution shifts and noisy data. Collectively, these findings provide the first systematic evidence that targeted post-training can produce reliable and robust LLM-based causal reasoners.

Prompt optimizers are widely used to create high-quality prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs), but their effectiveness remains unstable in practice. This instability is caused by the misalignment between conservative needs (e.g., safety compliance) and open-ended goals (e.g., creative writing). To address this, we propose a semantic-entropy-based method, using task uncertainty to guide prompt optimization. Specifically, we measure the task’s uncertainty level with pre-defined templates, then use this measure to direct prompt optimization: selecting high-entropy prompt candidates for creative tasks and low-entropy candidates for conservative ones. Extensive experiments across various model families demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms baselines by effectively adjusting entropy levels. Our approach requires no training, works with black-box models, and integrates easily into existing prompt optimizers.

Agentic workflows, composed of multiple collaborating Large Language Models (LLMs), have become a key paradigm for complex problem-solving. However, their effectiveness is often hindered by three critical challenges: high manual design costs, inefficient agentic search, and poor dynamic adaptability to new tasks and human preferences. To address these limitations, we propose HFlow, an evolutionary framework for generating agentic workflows through human-agent collaboration. HFlow employs an evolutionary algorithm to automate the search for optimal workflows by mutating and crossing over their structures, prompts, and LLM backbones. This process is guided by human preferences to ensure rapid convergence, while a hierarchical experience memory enables the generalization of learned strategies. Extensive experiments on math and code generation benchmarks show HFlow surpasses other automated baselines by up to 27.34%, while achieving comparable performance to o1-preview at only one-fourth of the cost. Our work introduces a new paradigm for workflow design that produces cost-effective and adaptive solutions, better aligning automated agentic systems with dynamic human needs.

In modern dialogue systems, the ability to implicitly infer user backgrounds from conversations and leverage this information for personalized assistance is crucial. However, the scarcity of high-quality data remains a fundamental challenge to evaluating and improving this capability. Traditional dataset construction methods are labor-intensive, resource-demanding, and raise privacy concerns. To address these issues, we propose a novel approach for automatic synthetic data generation and introduce the **I**mplicit **P**ersonalized **Dialog**ue (**IP-Dialog**) benchmark along with a training dataset, covering 10 tasks and 12 user attribute types. Additionally, we develop a systematic evaluation framework with four metrics to assess both attribute awareness and reasoning capabilities. We further propose five causal graphs to elucidate models’ reasoning pathways during implicit personalization. Extensive experiments yield insightful observations and prove the reliability of our dataset.

Self-consciousness, the introspection of one’s existence and thoughts, represents a high-level cognitive process. As language models advance at an unprecedented pace, a critical question arises: Are these models becoming self-conscious? Drawing upon insights from psychological and neural science, this work presents a practical definition of self-consciousness for language models and refines ten core concepts. Our work pioneers an investigation into self-consciousness in language models by, for the first time, leveraging structural causal games to establish the functional definitions of the ten core concepts. Based on our definitions, we conduct a comprehensive four-stage experiment: quantification (evaluation of ten leading models), representation (visualization of self-consciousness within the models), manipulation (modification of the models’ representation), and acquisition (fine-tuning the models on core concepts). Our findings indicate that although models are in the early stages of developing self-consciousness, there is a discernible representation of certain concepts within their internal mechanisms. However, these representations of self-consciousness are hard to manipulate positively at the current stage, yet they can be acquired through targeted fine-tuning.

Modern language models often rely on Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to encourage safe behaviors. However, they remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks due to three key limitations: (1) the inefficiency and high cost of human annotation, (2) the vast diversity of potential adversarial attacks, and (3) the risk of feedback bias and reward hacking. To address these challenges, we introduce Adversarial Preference Learning (APL), an iterative adversarial training method incorporating three key innovations. First, a direct harmfulness metric based on the model’s intrinsic preference probabilities, eliminating reliance on external assessment. Second, a conditional generative attacker that synthesizes input-specific adversarial variations. Third, an iterative framework with automated closed-loop feedback, enabling continuous adaptation through vulnerability discovery and mitigation. Experiments on Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 demonstrate that APL significantly enhances robustness, achieving 83.33% harmlessness win rate over the base model (evaluated by GPT-4o), reducing harmful outputs from 5.88% to 0.43% (measured by LLaMA-Guard), and lowering attack success rate by up to 65% according to HarmBench. Notably, APL maintains competitive utility, with an MT-Bench score of 6.59 (comparable to the baseline 6.78) and an LC-WinRate of 46.52% against the base model.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities and are receiving increasing attention to enhance their reasoning through scaling test-time compute. However, their application in open-ended, knowledge-intensive, complex reasoning scenarios is still limited. Reasoning-oriented methods struggle to generalize to open-ended scenarios due to implicit assumptions of complete world knowledge. Meanwhile, knowledge-augmented reasoning (KAR) methods fails to address two core challenges: 1) error propagation, where errors in early steps cascade through the chain, and 2) verification bottleneck, where the explore–exploit trade-off arises in multi-branch decision processes. To overcome these limitations, we introduce ARise, a novel framework that integrates risk assessment of intermediate reasoning states with dynamic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) within a Monte Carlo tree search paradigm. This approach enables effective construction and optimization of reasoning plans across multiple maintained hypothesis branches. Experimental results show that ARise significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art KAR methods by up to 23.10%, and the latest RAG-equipped large reasoning models by up to 25.37%. Our project page is at https://opencausalab.github.io/ARise.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have facilitated the development of Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs). Despite their impressive capabilities, MLLMs often suffer from over-reliance on unimodal biases (e.g., language bias and vision bias), leading to incorrect answers in complex multimodal tasks. To investigate this issue, we propose a causal framework to interpret the biases in Visual Question Answering (VQA) problems. Within this framework, we conduct an in-depth causal analysis to assess the causal effect of these biases on MLLM predictions. Based on the analysis, we introduce 1) a novel MORE dataset with 12,000 challenging VQA instances requiring multi-hop reasoning and overcoming unimodal biases. 2) a causality-enhanced agent framework CAVE that guides models to comprehensively integrate information from different modalities and mitigate biases. Our experiments show that MLLMs perform poorly on MORE, indicating strong unimodal biases and limited semantic understanding. However, when integrated with our CAVE, promising improvements in reasoning and bias mitigation can be seen. These findings provide important insights for the development of more robust MLLMs and contribute to the broader goal of advancing multimodal AI systems capable of deeper understanding and reasoning. Our project page is at https://github.com/OpenCausaLab/MORE.

Causal reasoning is a cornerstone of how humans interpret the world. To model and reason about causality, causal graphs offer a concise yet effective solution. Given the impressive advancements in language models, a crucial question arises: can they really understand causal graphs? To this end, we pioneer an investigation into language models’ understanding of causal graphs. Specifically, we develop a framework to define causal graph understanding, by assessing language models’ behaviors through four practical criteria derived from diverse disciplines (e.g., philosophy and psychology). We then develop CLEAR, a novel benchmark that defines three complexity levels and encompasses 20 causal graph-based tasks across these levels. Finally, based on our framework and benchmark, we conduct extensive experiments on six leading language models and summarize five empirical findings. Our results indicate that while language models demonstrate a preliminary understanding of causal graphs, significant potential for improvement remains.

Causal reasoning is fundamental to human intelligence and crucial for effective decision-making in real-world environments. Despite recent advancements in large vision-language models (LVLMs), their ability to comprehend causality remains unclear. Previous work typically focuses on commonsense causality between events and/or actions, which is insufficient for applications like embodied agents and lacks the explicitly defined causal graphs required for formal causal reasoning. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a fine-grained and unified definition of causality involving interactions between humans and/or objects. Building on the definition, we construct a novel dataset, CELLO, consisting of 14,094 causal questions across all four levels of causality: discovery, association, intervention, and counterfactual. This dataset surpasses traditional commonsense causality by including explicit causal graphs that detail the interactions between humans and objects. Extensive experiments on CELLO reveal that current LVLMs still struggle with causal reasoning tasks, but they can benefit significantly from our proposed CELLO-CoT, a causally inspired chain-of-thought prompting strategy. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses from this study provide valuable insights for future research. Our project page is at https://github.com/OpenCausaLab/CELLO.