ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Challenges and Opportunities in Causality Analysis Using Large Language Models.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines the challenges and opportunities in extracting causal information from text with Large Language Models (LLMs). It first establishes the importance of causality extraction and then explores different views on causality, including common sense ideas informing different data annotation schemes, Aristotle's Four Causes, and Pearl's Ladder of Causation. The paper notes the relevance of this conceptual variety for the task. The text reviews datasets and work related to finding causal expressions, both using traditional machine learning methods and LLMs. Although the known limitations of LLMs-hallucinations and lack of common sense-affect the reliability of causal findings, GPT and Gemini models (GPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro and others) show the ability to conduct causality analysis; moreover, they can even apply different perspectives, such as counterfactual and Aristotelian. They are also capable of explaining and critiquing causal analyses: we report an experiment showing that in addition to largely flawless analyses, the newer models exhibit very high agreement of 88-91% on causal relationships between events-much higher than the typically reported inter-annotator agreement of 30-70%. The article concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned about these challenges and questions how LLMs might help address them in the future. For example, LLMs should help address the sparsity of annotated data. Moreover, LLMs point to a future where causality analysis in texts focuses not on annotations but on understanding, as causality is about semantics and not word spans. The Appendices and shared data show examples of LLM outputs on tasks involving causal reasoning and causal information extraction, demonstrating the models' current abilities and limits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.