Sources

542 sources

Source

Xiang et al. (2026)

Grounding Before Generalizing: How AI Differs from Humans in Causal Transfer

arXiv

Find It

DOI

Abstract

Extracting abstract causal structures and applying them to novel situations is a hallmark of human intelligence. While Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong performance on a wide range of reasoning tasks, their capacity for interactive causal learning -- inducing latent structures through sequential exploration and transferring them across contexts -- remains uncharacterized. Human learners accomplish such transfer after minimal exposure, whereas classical Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents fail catastrophically. Whether state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence (AI) models possess human-like mechanisms for abstract causal structure transfer is an open question. Using the OpenLock paradigm requiring sequential discovery of Common Cause (CC) and Common Effect (CE) structures, here we show that models exhibit fundamentally delayed or absent transfer: even successful models require initial environmental-specific mapping -- what we term environmental grounding -- before efficiency gains emerge, whereas humans leverage prior structural knowledge from the very first solution attempt. In the text-only condition, models matched or exceeded human discovery efficiency. In contrast, visual information -- in both the image-only and text-and-image conditions -- overall degraded rather than enhanced performance, revealing a broad reliance on symbolic processing rather than integrated multimodal reasoning. Models further exhibited systematic CC/CE asymmetries absent in humans, suggesting heuristic biases rather than direction-neutral causal abstraction. These findings reveal that large-scale statistical learning does not produce the decontextualized causal schemas underpinning human analogical reasoning, establishing grounding-dependent transfer as a fundamental limitation of current LLMs and VLMs.

Reference

Xiang, L., Ma, Y., Cao, Z., Zhu, Y., & Zhu, S. C. (2026). Grounding Before Generalizing: How AI Differs from Humans in Causal Transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24062. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2604.24062

What Rests on This

1 mechanism cites this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Schema Formation Representational Structures

  • Measured in AI

    Conversation: a 2026 preprint ran four current AI models on OpenLock, a causal-structure transfer task first used with 80 people, giving models a written description of a previously solved environment in their context window (what the model can see in the current conversation); no study was found giving AI a classic schema-formation paradigm such as prototype distortion or the Tse schema task

  • Measured in AI

    People who had experienced the same causal structure before cut attempts from 20.66 (SD 9.09) to 13.85 (SD 10.00), d = 0.71, and cut attempts to their first solution from 8.97 to 4.99, whereas the best model, Gemini-3-Flash, improved only from 9.08 to 7.33 attempts and no model significantly cut first-solution attempts

  • Measured in AI

    Transfer benefit varied widely across systems: 33% for people versus 19.3% for Gemini-3-Flash, 17.9% for Claude-4.5-Sonnet, 10.5% for DeepSeek-V3.2 and -10.5% (worse after prior experience) for GPT-5.2

  • Measured in AI

    The comparison is approximate: people played a visual version in 2018 and had to remember earlier environments, while models played a text version with the prior solutions still visible and had lower baseline attempt counts; because the uneven test favoured the models yet they still showed less use of prior structure, the below-human result counts, though it rests on one preprint with no direct statistical test between people and models