Cheng Zhang

Cheng Zhang, Stefan Bauer, Paul Bennett et al.

We assess the ability of large language models (LLMs) to answer causal questions by analyzing their strengths and weaknesses against three types of causal question. We believe that current LLMs can answer causal questions with existing causal knowledge as combined domain experts. However, they are not yet able to provide satisfactory answers for discovering new knowledge or for high-stakes decision-making tasks with high precision. We discuss possible future directions and opportunities, such as enabling explicit and implicit causal modules as well as deep causal-aware LLMs. These will not only enable LLMs to answer many different types of causal questions for greater impact but also enable LLMs to be more trustworthy and efficient in general.

Chao Ma, Cheng Zhang

The gold standard for causal model evaluation involves comparing model predictions with true effects estimated from randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, RCTs are not always feasible or ethical to perform. In contrast, conditionally randomized experiments based on inverse probability weighting (IPW) offer a more realistic approach but may suffer from high estimation variance. To tackle this challenge and enhance causal model evaluation in real-world conditional randomization settings, we introduce a novel low-variance estimator for causal error, dubbed as the pairs estimator. By applying the same IPW estimator to both the model and true experimental effects, our estimator effectively cancels out the variance due to IPW and achieves a smaller asymptotic variance. Empirical studies demonstrate the improved of our estimator, highlighting its potential on achieving near-RCT performance. Our method offers a simple yet powerful solution to evaluate causal inference models in conditional randomization settings without complicated modification of the IPW estimator itself, paving the way for more robust and reliable model assessments.

Yunzhen Feng, Julia Kempe, Cheng Zhang et al. · pku

Large reasoning models (LRMs) spend substantial test-time compute on long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, but what *characterizes* an effective CoT remains unclear. While prior work reports gains from lengthening CoTs and increasing review (revisiting earlier steps) via appended *wait* tokens, recent studies suggest that shorter thinking can outperform longer traces. We therefore conduct a systematic evaluation across ten LRMs on math and scientific reasoning. Contrary to the "longer-is-better" narrative, we find that both naive CoT lengthening and increased review are associated with *lower* accuracy. As CoT unfolds step by step, token-level metrics can conflate verbosity with process quality. We introduce a graph view of CoT to extract structure and identify a single statistic-the *Failed-Step Fraction (FSF)*, the fraction of steps in abandoned branches-that consistently outpredicts length and review ratio for correctness across models. To probe causality, we design two interventions. First, we rank candidate CoTs by each metric at test time, where FSF yields the largest pass@1 gains; second, we edit CoTs to remove failed branches, which significantly improves accuracy, indicating that failed branches bias subsequent reasoning. Taken together, these results characterize effective CoTs as those that *fail less* and support *structure-aware* test-time scaling over indiscriminately generating long CoT.