CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Advanced Causal Inference Techniques

An Explainable AI Approach to Large Language Model Assisted Causal Model Auditing and Development

Open access
Zhang, Yanming, Fitzgibbon, Brette, Garofolo, Dino, Kota, Akshith, Papenhausen, Eric, Mueller, Klaus·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2312.16211arXiv 2312.16211
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Causal networks are widely used in many fields, including epidemiology, social science, medicine, and engineering, to model the complex relationships between variables. While it can be convenient to algorithmically infer these models directly from observational data, the resulting networks are often plagued with erroneous edges. Auditing and correcting these networks may require domain expertise frequently unavailable to the analyst. We propose the use of large language models such as ChatGPT as an auditor for causal networks. Our method presents ChatGPT with a causal network, one edge at a time, to produce insights about edge directionality, possible confounders, and mediating variables. We ask ChatGPT to reflect on various aspects of each causal link and we then produce visualizations that summarize these viewpoints for the human analyst to direct the edge, gather more data, or test further hypotheses. We envision a system where large language models, automated causal inference, and the human analyst and domain expert work hand in hand as a team to derive holistic and comprehensive causal models for any given case scenario. This paper presents first results obtained with an emerging prototype.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2312.16211

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Expert-elicited SCMs are commonly held as the gold standard.

    “Hereby, we ensure close alignment to the true human reasoning process and ensure the quality of the workflow since expert-elicited SCMs are commonly held as the gold standard (Zanga et al., 2022;Zhang et al., 2023).”

    From STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2023

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says causal-model auditing typically requires a qualified human domain expert, but it does not say that expert-elicited SCMs are commonly regarded as the gold standard. Searches for expert-elicited models and the gold-standard claim found no passage addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson. Multimodel inference: understand- ing aic and bic in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2):261-304, 2004.
  2. D. M. Chickering. Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Nov):507-554, 2002.
  3. A. Choudhry, M. Sharma, P. Chundury, T. Kapler, D. W. Gray, N. Ra- makrishnan, and N. Elmqvist. Once upon a time in visualization: Understanding the use of textual narratives for causality. IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1332-1342, 2020.
  4. T. N. Dang, P. Murray, J. Aurisano, and A. G. Forbes. Reactionflow: An interactive visualization tool for causality analysis in biological pathways. In BMC Proceedings, vol. 9, pp. 1-18, 2015.
  5. N. Elmqvist and P. Tsigas. Causality visualization using animated growing polygons. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 189-196, 2003.
  6. J. Gao, X. Ding, B. Qin, and T. Liu. Is chatgpt a good causal reasoner? a comprehensive evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07375, 2023. · arXiv
  7. J. Gerring. Causation: A unified framework for the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17(2):163-198, 2005.
  8. B. Ghai and K. Mueller. D-bias: A causality-based human-in-the- loop system for tackling algorithmic bias. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):473-482, 2022.
  9. T. A. Glass, S. N. Goodman, M. A. Hernán, and J. M. Samet. Causal inference in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 34:61-75, 2013.
  10. G. Guo, M. Glenski, Z. Shaw, E. Saldanha, A. Endert, S. Volkova, and D. Arendt. Vaine: Visualization and ai for natural experiments. In IEEE VIS, pp. 21-25, 2021.
  11. G. Guo, E. Karavani, A. Endert, and B. C. Kwon. Causalvis: Visual- izations for causal inference. In ACM CHI, pp. 1-20, 2023.
  12. M. N. Hoque and K. Mueller. Outcome-explorer: A causality guided interactive visual interface for interpretable algorithmic decision mak- ing. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(12):4728-4740, 2021.
  13. Z. Jin, S. Guo, N. Chen, D. Weiskopf, D. Gotz, and N. Cao. Vi- sual causality analysis of event sequence data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1343-1352, 2020.
  14. N. R. Kadaba, P. P. Irani, and J. Leboe. Visualizing causal semantics using animations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1254-1261, 2007.
  15. A. Kale, Y. Wu, and J. Hullman. Causal support: modeling causal inferences with visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):1150-1160, 2021.
  16. E. Kıcıman, R. Ness, A. Sharma, and C. Tan. Causal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00050, 2023. · arXiv
  17. S. Long, A. Piché, V. Zantedeschi, T. Schuster, and A. Drouin. Causal discovery with language models as imperfect experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02390, 2023. · arXiv
  18. S. Long, T. Schuster, A. Piché, S. Research, et al. Can large language models build causal graphs? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05279, 2023. · arXiv
  19. A. Nam, C. Hughes, T. Icard, and T. Gerstenberg. Show and tell: Learn- ing causal structures from observations and explanations. PsyArXiv preprint https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wjs9q, 2023. · DOI
  20. J. Ramsey, M. Glymour, R. Sanchez-Romero, and C. Glymour. A million variables and more: the fast greedy equivalence search algo- rithm for learning high-dimensional graphical causal models, with an application to functional magnetic resonance images. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 3:121-129, 2017.
  21. J. M. Robins, R. Scheines, P. Spirtes, and L. Wasserman. Uniform consistency in causal inference. Biometrika, 90(3):491-515, 2003.
  22. R. Y. Rohekar, S. Nisimov, Y. Gurwicz, and G. Novik. Iterative causal discovery in the possible presence of latent confounders and selection bias. NIPS, 34:2454-2465, 2021.
  23. G. Schwarz. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of statistics, pp. 461-464, 1978.
  24. Y. Shimoni, E. Karavani, S. Ravid, P. Bak, T. H. Ng, S. H. Alford, D. Meade, and Y. Goldschmidt. An evaluation toolkit to guide model selection and cohort definition in causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00442, 2019. · arXiv
  25. P. Spirtes. An anytime algorithm for causal inference. In International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 278-285, 2001.
  26. P. Spirtes, C. N. Glymour, R. Scheines, and D. Heckerman. Causation, Prediction, and Search, Second Edition. MIT press, 2000.
  27. J. P. Vandenbroucke, A. Broadbent, and N. Pearce. Causality and causal inference in epidemiology: the need for a pluralistic approach. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45(6):1776-1786, 2016.
  28. J. Wang and K. Mueller. The visual causality analyst: An interactive interface for causal reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):230-239, 2015.
  29. J. Wang and K. Mueller. Visual causality analysis made practical. In IEEE VAST, pp. 151-161, 2017.
  30. J. Wang and K. Mueller. Domino: Visual causal reasoning with time- dependent phenomena. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 2022.
  31. X. Xie, F. Du, and Y. Wu. A visual analytics approach for exploratory causal analysis: Exploration, validation, and applications. IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1448-1458, 2020.
  32. C. Xiong, J. Shapiro, J. Hullman, and S. Franconeri. Illusion of causal- ity in visualized data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 26(1):853-862, 2019.
  33. J. N. Yan, Z. Gu, H. Lin, and J. M. Rzeszotarski. Silva: Interactively assessing machine learning fairness using causality. In ACM CHI, pp. 1-13, 2020.
  34. J. Yang, S. C. Han, and J. Poon. A survey on extraction of causal relations from natural language text. Knowledge and Information Systems, 64(5):1161-1186, 2022.
  35. C.-H. E. Yen, A. Parameswaran, and W.-T. Fu. An exploratory user study of visual causality analysis. Computer Graphics Forum, 38(3):173-184, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Fitzgibbon, B., Garofolo, D., Kota, A., Papenhausen, E., & Mueller, K.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
ORCID
Mueller, Klaus
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2312.16211
arXiv
2312.16211
OpenAlex
W4390436858
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, explainable AI, causal discovery, confounders, mediators, human-AI collaboration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review