Is ChatGPT a Good Causal Reasoner? A Comprehensive Evaluation

AI-generated keywords: ChatGPT Causal Reasoning Event Causality Identification (ECI) In-Context Learning (ICL) Chain-of-Thought (COT)

AI-generated Key Points

  • The paper evaluates ChatGPT's causal reasoning capabilities, which are important for NLP applications.
  • Despite performing well in various NLP tasks, it is unclear how well ChatGPT performs in causal reasoning.
  • Experiments were conducted using four versions of ChatGPT and the Event Causality Identification (ECI) task as a benchmark.
  • Results show that ChatGPT is a good causal interpreter but not a good causal reasoner due to reporting biases and upgrading processes such as RLHF.
  • In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Thought (COT) techniques can exacerbate ChatGPT's causal hallucination.
  • The ability of ChatGPT to reason causally is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts, with close-ended prompts performing better than open-ended ones.
  • ChatGPT excels at capturing explicit causality rather than implicit causality and performs better in sentences with lower event density and smaller lexical distance between events.
  • F1 score was used as an evaluation metric for the experiments.
  • This study provides insights into the limitations of current language models for understanding causality in natural language text.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Jinglong Gao, Xiao Ding, Bing Qin, Ting Liu

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Causal reasoning ability is crucial for numerous NLP applications. Despite the impressive emerging ability of ChatGPT in various NLP tasks, it is unclear how well ChatGPT performs in causal reasoning. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive evaluation of the ChatGPT's causal reasoning capabilities. Experiments show that ChatGPT is not a good causal reasoner, but a good causal interpreter. Besides, ChatGPT has a serious hallucination on causal reasoning, possibly due to the reporting biases between causal and non-causal relationships in natural language, as well as ChatGPT's upgrading processes, such as RLHF. The In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Though (COT) techniques can further exacerbate such causal hallucination. Additionally, the causal reasoning ability of ChatGPT is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts, and close-ended prompts perform better than open-ended prompts. For events in sentences, ChatGPT excels at capturing explicit causality rather than implicit causality, and performs better in sentences with lower event density and smaller lexical distance between events.

Submitted to arXiv on 12 May. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2305.07375v3

This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of the causal reasoning capabilities of ChatGPT, which is crucial for numerous NLP applications. Despite its impressive performance in various NLP tasks, it is unclear how well ChatGPT performs in causal reasoning. The authors conduct experiments using four state-of-the-art versions of ChatGPT and utilize the Event Causality Identification (ECI) task as a comprehensive causal reasoning benchmark. The results show that ChatGPT is not a good causal reasoner but rather a good causal interpreter. Additionally, ChatGPT has a serious hallucination on causal reasoning due to reporting biases between causal and non-causal relationships in natural language and upgrading processes such as RLHF. The In-Context Learning (ICL) and Chain-of-Thought (COT) techniques can further exacerbate such causal hallucination. Furthermore, the authors find that the causal reasoning ability of ChatGPT is sensitive to the words used to express the causal concept in prompts, and close-ended prompts perform better than open-ended prompts. For events in sentences, ChatGPT excels at capturing explicit causality rather than implicit causality and performs better in sentences with lower event density and smaller lexical distance between events. Finally, the authors use F1 score as an evaluation metric for their experiments. Overall, this study provides important insights into the limitations of current language models for understanding causality in natural language text.
Created on 13 Jun. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.