# CRAwDAD: Causal Reasoning Augmentation with Dual-Agent Debate

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22854 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.22854/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Causal reasoning in LLMs, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 44 of its 60 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Causal reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/lr/causal-reasoning-in-llms/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Medical and scientific domain agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/medical-and-scientific-domain-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 44)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek LLM: Scaling Open-Source Language Models with Longtermism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02954/) (2024)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06322/) (2025)
- [Causal Reasoning and Large Language Models: Opening a New Frontier for Causality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00050/) (2023)
- [ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13007/) (2023)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07155/) (2024)
- [When Scaling Meets LLM Finetuning: The Effect of Data, Model and Finetuning Method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17193/) (2024)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Causal Parrots: Large Language Models May Talk Causality But Are Not Causal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13067/) (2023)
- [LLM Post-Training: A Deep Dive into Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.21321/) (2025)
- [CLadder: Assessing Causal Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04350/) (2023)
- [Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02442/) (2024)
- [Understanding Causality with Large Language Models: Feasibility and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05524/) (2023)
- [Efficient Causal Graph Discovery Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01207/) (2024)
- [When Thinking Fails: The Pitfalls of Reasoning for Instruction-Following in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11423/) (2025)
- [SWE-Debate: Competitive Multi-Agent Debate for Software Issue Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23348/) (2025)
- [Debate Only When Necessary: Adaptive Multiagent Collaboration for Efficient LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05047/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models and Causal Inference in Collaboration: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09606/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Causal Discovery Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15073/) (2024)
- [Causality for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15319/) (2024)
- [CausalBN-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Causal Learning Capability of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06349/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Illusion to Insight: Change-Aware File-Level Software Defect Prediction Using Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23875/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When people reason about cause and effect, they often consider many competing "what if" scenarios before deciding which explanation fits best. Analogously, advanced language models capable of causal inference can consider multiple interventions and counterfactuals to judge the validity of causal claims. Crucially, this type of reasoning is less like a single calculation and more like an internal dialogue between alternative hypotheses. In this paper, we make this dialogue explicit through a dual-agent debate framework where one model provides a structured causal inference, and the other critically examines this reasoning for logical flaws. When disagreements arise, the agents attempt to persuade each other, challenging each other's logic and revising their conclusions until they converge on a mutually agreed answer. To take advantage of this deliberative process, we specifically use reasoning language models, whose strengths in both causal inference and adversarial debate remain under-explored relative to standard large language models. We evaluate our approach on the CLadder dataset, a benchmark linking natural language questions to formally defined causal graphs across all three rungs of Pearl's ladder of causation. With Qwen3 and DeepSeek-R1 as debater agents, we demonstrate that multi-agent debate improves DeepSeek-R1's overall accuracy in causal inference from 78.03% to 87.45%, with the counterfactual category specifically improving from 67.94% to 80.04% accuracy. Similarly, Qwen3's overall accuracy improves from 84.16% to 89.41%, and counterfactual questions from 71.53% to 80.35%, showing that even strong models can still benefit greatly from debate with weaker agents. Our results highlight the potential of reasoning models as building blocks for multi-agent systems in causal inference, and demonstrate the importance of diverse perspectives in causal problem-solving.