Active Causal Discovery Benchmark: Evaluating LLM Agents Under Budgeted Interventions

arXiv:2609.31675 · cs.LG, cs.AI · Submitted 2026-09-16 · Read on arXiv

cs.LG, cs.AI

Submitted: 2026-09-16

Updated: 2026-09-16

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: We introduce the Active Causal Discovery Benchmark (ACDB), an SCM-grounded environment for evaluating whether LLM agents recover causal graph structure from observations and budget-constrained hard

Terminology

Abstract

We introduce the Active Causal Discovery Benchmark (ACDB), an SCM-grounded environment for evaluating whether LLM agents recover causal graph structure from observations and budget-constrained hard interventions. ACDB pairs a linear-Gaussian world generator with a fixed observe-intervene-submit API and a three-layer scoring contract that separates skeleton recovery, DAG recovery, and intervention efficiency. On the current six-level ladder, PC with a greedy active orientation heuristic is the strongest non-oracle method (directed F1 42.7%, SHD 4.79), ahead of Claude Sonnet 4.6 raw active (31.7%, 7.25) and GPT-5.4 raw active (22.9%, 9.27). The most informative diagnostic is the precision-recall decomposition: PC under-commits with high precision, LLMs over-commit with lower precision, and statistical-tool access often increases abstention rather than useful intervention. A structure-blind random DAG baseline reaches 23.6% directed F1 on this dense v0 ladder; a density probe lowers this floor to 16.9%, motivating the v1 calibration pass. The current results should therefore be read as a benchmark audit and calibration report, not as evidence that current LLMs solve active causal discovery.

Sources

Related papers