Ideological Bias in LLMs' Economic Causal Reasoning

Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 18 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.

Benchmarking LLM Causal Reasoning with Scientifically Validated Relationships

Causal reasoning is fundamental for Large Language Models (LLMs) to understand genuine cause-and-effect relationships beyond pattern matching. Existing benchmarks suffer from critical limitations such as reliance on synthetic data and narrow domain coverage. We introduce a novel benchmark constructed from casually identified relationships extracted from top-tier economics and finance journals, drawing on rigorous methodologies including instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, and regression discontinuity designs. Our benchmark comprises 40,379 evaluation items covering five task types across domains such as health, environment, technology, law, and culture. Experimental results on eight state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial limitations, with the best model achieving only 57.6\% accuracy. Moreover, model scale does not consistently translate to superior performance, and even advanced reasoning models struggle with fundamental causal relationship identification. These findings underscore a critical gap between current LLM capabilities and demands of reliable causal reasoning in high-stakes applications.

GeoReg: Weight-Constrained Few-Shot Regression for Socio-Economic Estimation using LLM

Socio-economic indicators like regional GDP, population, and education levels, are crucial to shaping policy decisions and fostering sustainable development. This research introduces GeoReg a regression model that integrates diverse data sources, including satellite imagery and web-based geospatial information, to estimate these indicators even for data-scarce regions such as developing countries. Our approach leverages the prior knowledge of large language model (LLM) to address the scarcity of labeled data, with the LLM functioning as a data engineer by extracting informative features to enable effective estimation in few-shot settings. Specifically, our model obtains contextual relationships between data features and the target indicator, categorizing their correlations as positive, negative, mixed, or irrelevant. These features are then fed into the linear estimator with tailored weight constraints for each category. To capture nonlinear patterns, the model also identifies meaningful feature interactions and integrates them, along with nonlinear transformations. Experiments across three countries at different stages of development demonstrate that our model outperforms baselines in estimating socio-economic indicators, even for low-income countries with limited data availability.

Generalizable Disaster Damage Assessment via Change Detection with Vision Foundation Model

The increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters demand more sophisticated approaches for rapid and precise damage assessment. To tackle this issue, researchers have developed various methods on disaster benchmark datasets from satellite imagery to aid in detecting disaster damage. However, the diverse nature of geographical landscapes and disasters makes it challenging to apply existing methods to regions unseen during training. We present DAVI (Disaster Assessment with VIsion foundation model), which overcomes domain disparities and detects structural damage (e.g., building) without requiring ground-truth labels of the target region. DAVI integrates task-specific knowledge from a model trained on source regions with an image segmentation foundation model to generate pseudo labels of possible damage in the target region. It then employs a two-stage refinement process, targeting both the pixel and overall image, to more accurately pinpoint changes in disaster-struck areas based on before-and-after images. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that DAVI achieves exceptional performance across diverse terrains (e.g., USA and Mexico) and disaster types (e.g., wildfires, hurricanes, and earthquakes). This confirms its robustness in assessing disaster impact without dependence on ground-truth labels.