Large Language Models (LLMs) offer strong generative capabilities, but many applications require explicit and fine-grained control over specific textual concepts, such as humor, persuasiveness, or formality. Prior approaches in prompting and representation engineering can provide coarse or single-attribute control, but systematic evaluation of multi-attribute settings remains limited. We introduce an evaluation framework for fine-grained controllability for both single- and dual-concept scenarios, focusing on linguistically distinct concept pairs (e.g., persuasiveness vs. humor). Surprisingly, across multiple LLMs and generative tasks, we find that performance often drops in the dual-concept setting, even though the chosen concepts should in principle be separable. This reveals a fundamental limitation of naive prompting-based control: models struggle with compositionality even when concepts are intuitively independent. Our framework provides systematic evidence of this gap and offers a principled approach for measuring the ability of future methods for multi-concept control.

Causality is essential in scientific research, enabling researchers to interpret true relationships between variables. These causal relationships are often represented by causal graphs, which are directed acyclic graphs. With the recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), there is an increasing interest in exploring their capabilities in causal reasoning and their potential use to hypothesize causal graphs. These tasks necessitate the LLMs to encode the causal graph effectively for subsequent downstream tasks. In this paper, we introduce CausalGraph2LLM, a comprehensive benchmark comprising over 700k queries across diverse causal graph settings to evaluate the causal reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We categorize the causal queries into two types: graph-level and node-level queries. We benchmark both open-sourced and closed models for our study. Our findings reveal that while LLMs show promise in this domain, they are highly sensitive to the encoding used. Even capable models like GPT-4 and Gemini-1.5 exhibit sensitivity to encoding, with deviations of about 60%. We further demonstrate this sensitivity for downstream causal intervention tasks. Moreover, we observe that LLMs can often display biases when presented with contextual information about a causal graph, potentially stemming from their parametric memory.

Scientific discovery catalyzes human intellectual advances, driven by the cycle of hypothesis generation, experimental design, evaluation, and assumption refinement. Central to this process is causal inference, uncovering the mechanisms behind observed phenomena. While randomized experiments provide strong inferences, they are often infeasible due to ethical or practical constraints. However, observational studies are prone to confounding or mediating biases. While crucial, identifying such backdoor paths is expensive and heavily depends on scientists’ domain knowledge to generate hypotheses. We introduce a novel benchmark where the objective is to complete a partial causal graph. We design a benchmark with varying difficulty levels with over 4000 queries. We show the strong ability of LLMs to hypothesize the backdoor variables between a cause and its effect. Unlike simple knowledge memorization of fixed associations, our task requires the LLM to reason according to the context of the entire graph.

With the recent emergence of powerful instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), various helpful conversational Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have been deployed across many applications. When prompted by users, these AI systems successfully perform a wide range of tasks as part of a conversation. To provide some sort of memory and context, such approaches typically condition their output on the entire conversational history. Although this sensitivity to the conversational history can often lead to improved performance on subsequent tasks, we find that performance can in fact also be negatively impacted, if there is a _task-switch_. To the best of our knowledge, our work makes the first attempt to formalize the study of such vulnerabilities and interference of tasks in conversational LLMs caused by task-switches in the conversational history. Our experiments across 5 datasets with 15 task switches using popular LLMs reveal that many of the task-switches can lead to significant performance degradation.