Can LLMs Assist Expert Elicitation for Probabilistic Causal Modeling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) as an alternative to human expert elicitation for extracting structured causal knowledge and facilitating causal modeling in biometric and healthcare applications. Material and Methods: LLM-generated causal structures, specifically Bayesian networks (BNs), were benchmarked against traditional statistical methods (e.g., Bayesian Information Criterion) using healthcare datasets. Validation techniques included structural equation modeling (SEM) to verifying relationships, and measures such as entropy, predictive accuracy, and robustness to compare network structures. Results and Discussion: LLM-generated BNs demonstrated lower entropy than expert-elicited and statistically generated BNs, suggesting higher confidence and precision in predictions. However, limitations such as contextual constraints, hallucinated dependencies, and potential biases inherited from training data require further investigation. Conclusion: LLMs represent a novel frontier in expert elicitation for probabilistic causal modeling, promising to improve transparency and reduce uncertainty in the decision-making using such models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".