Explore/benchmark/ACED-Bench: Evaluating How LLM Agents Acquire and Act on Causal Evidence
A

Yiwei Chen, Amila Weerasinghe, Siddharth Biswal, Utkrisht Rajkumar, Olcay Boz, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, Rose Yu/ACED-Bench: Evaluating How LLM Agents Acquire and Act on Causal EvidenceUnknown

Large language models are increasingly used as scientific assistants, yet we still lack reliable ways to evaluate whether they can investigate a system rather than merely answer a prompt. A useful evaluation must let agents choose experiments, interpret finite evidence, and make causal decisions, while keeping the environment coherent across repeated observations and interventions and preserving objective ground truth. We introduce ACED-BENCH (Active Causal Evidence and Decision Benchmark), a neuro-symbolic benchmark built around this requirement. The key idea is to separate the readable scientific surface from the formal causal world: LLMs generate natural-language scenarios and task text, while hidden probabilistic graphical models define the causal graph, data-generating process, intervention semantics, validation checks, and oracle answers. This yields scientific worlds that are natural for agents to investigate but exact enough for scalable, programmatic evaluation. The main leaderboard ACED-CORE contains 180 tasks: 60 set-valued causal ancestry/descendancy questions and 120 constrained causal-decision tasks. We also report ACED-QUAL, a 150-question yes/no qualification check using the same hidden-PGM interface. We evaluate seven contemporary LLMs and two earlier-generation models across three active agent designs. ACED-QUAL checks whether agents can use the interface to draw conclusions from evidence, while ACED-CORE tests whether they can decide what evidence to collect and when to commit to an answer. Evidence-ledger analysis localizes failures within the investigation: agents test the wrong intervention, lose relevant evidence, or continue after sufficient evidence has appeared. These results suggest that reliable AI co-scientists need explicit support for experiment design, evidence retention, answer commitment, and stopping.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 9h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed9h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
not enough history
Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at
inactivepushed
not enough history
not enough history
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

R
RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems
0 · benchmark
55
C
Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts
0 · benchmark
55
E
Exploring Structures in Physics Problems: Can AI Agents Discover Statistical Mechanical Mappings?
0 · benchmark
55
C
Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation
0 · benchmark
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler9h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing