Abstract
Many benchmarks for automated causal inference evaluate a system's performance based on a single numerical output, such as an Average Treatment Effect (ATE). This approach conflates two distinct steps in causal analysis: identification - formulating a valid research design under stated assumptions - and estimation - implementing that design numerically on finite data. We introduce CausalReasoningBenchmark, a benchmark of 173 queries across 132 real-world datasets, curated from 79 peer-reviewed research papers and three widely-used causal-inference textbooks. For each query a system must produce (i) a structured identification specification that names the strategy, the treatment, outcome, and control variables, and all design-specific elements, and (ii) a point estimate with a standard error. By scoring these two components separately, our benchmark enables granular diagnosis: it distinguishes failures in causal reasoning from errors in numerical execution. Baseline results with a state of the art LLM show that, while the model correctly identifies the high-level strategy in 79% of cases, full identification-specification correctness drops to only 34%, revealing that the bottleneck lies in the nuanced details of research design rather than in computation. CausalReasoningBenchmark is publicly available on Hugging Face and is designed to foster the development of more robust automated causal-inference systems.