Active Exploration Between Humans and Large Language Models: The "Conjunction Dilemma" in Causal Reasoning and Its Solutions

This study explores the differences in causal reasoning abilities between humans and large language models (LLMs) in active exploration scenarios. Key findings include: Active exploration significantly improves humans' conjunctive causal reasoning performance, but LLMs still have shortcomings in exploration efficiency; although LLMs' hypothesis inference accuracy is close to that of humans, they are inefficient in active information acquisition strategies and also have a conjunctive-disjunctive performance gap. This study provides key insights into understanding the causal reasoning of intelligent systems and emphasizes the importance of active exploration for improving reasoning abilities.

In the field of cognitive science, it has long been found that adults have difficulty identifying 'conjunctive causal rules' (requiring multiple causes to exist simultaneously to trigger an outcome) — the 'conjunction dilemma' — but perform better on 'disjunctive causal rules' (any single cause can trigger the outcome). Previous experiments mostly used passive observation paradigms where learners could not actively control evidence generation, leading to a key question: Can active exploration alleviate the conjunction dilemma?

The study used an improved Blicket Detector task where participants needed to identify object combinations that trigger an effect. Two conditions were designed: 1. Conjunctive condition (a specific combination of objects triggers the effect); 2. Disjunctive condition (a single specific object triggers the effect). Unlike previous studies, participants were given the right to freely intervene and could actively choose object combinations to test, instead of passively observing a preset sequence of evidence.

The results show that active exploration substantially improved adults' conjunctive causal reasoning performance, indicating that the conjunction dilemma may stem from the way evidence is acquired rather than fundamental limitations in cognitive ability. However, it should be noted: Even with the opportunity for active exploration, conjunctive rules still require more tests than disjunctive rules to be correctly inferred, suggesting that the inherent complexity of conjunctive reasoning still exists.

Comparing LLM performance revealed: 1. Some advanced models have hypothesis inference accuracy close to human levels; 2. Inefficient exploration strategies (requiring more steps to converge, lack of systematicity, low information acquisition efficiency); 3. LLMs also have a conjunctive-disjunctive performance gap, reflecting that this gap may stem from task structure characteristics rather than just human cognitive limitations.

For human cognition: It supports the 'initiative hypothesis' — giving learners control can significantly improve reasoning performance, echoing the key role of active learning in knowledge construction. For AI: It reveals that LLMs have reached human levels in static reasoning tasks, but dynamic exploration tasks still need improvement, suggesting that future AI needs to integrate active learning and curiosity-driven mechanisms.

Practical implications: 1. AI systems should support users' active exploration rather than passive information presentation; 2. LLMs can learn humans' efficient exploration strategies to improve their own information acquisition methods; 3. AI educational tools need to focus on cultivating active exploration abilities. Limitations: Simplified tasks, no involvement of long-term learning strategy evolution. Future directions: Testing complex causal structures, computational models simulating human exploration strategies, integrating active learning mechanisms into LLMs, and research on multi-agent collaborative exploration.