ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Disscusion via Argumentation Schemes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06294v2
• Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:57:15 GMT
• Title: ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Disscusion via Argumentation Schemes
• Authors: Shengxin Hong, Liang Xiao, Xin Zhang, Jianxia Chen,
• Abstract summary: ArgMed-Agents is a framework to enable large language models (LLMs) to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction. We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees. setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.
• Score: 7.950883198425716
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: There are two main barriers to using large language models (LLMs) in clinical reasoning. Firstly, while LLMs exhibit significant promise in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, their performance in complex reasoning and planning falls short of expectations. Secondly, LLMs use uninterpretable methods to make clinical decisions that are fundamentally different from the clinician's cognitive processes. This leads to user distrust. In this paper, we present a multi-agent framework called ArgMed-Agents, which aims to enable LLM-based agents to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction. ArgMed-Agents performs self-argumentation iterations via Argumentation Scheme for Clinical Discussion (a reasoning mechanism for modeling cognitive processes in clinical reasoning), and then constructs the argumentation process as a directed graph representing conflicting relationships. Ultimately, use symbolic solver to identify a series of rational and coherent arguments to support decision. We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees. ArgMed-Agents enables LLMs to mimic the process of clinical argumentative reasoning by generating explanations of reasoning in a self-directed manner. The setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.

Related papers

• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• A Methodology for Explainable Large Language Models with Integrated Gradients and Linguistic Analysis in Text Classification [2.556395214262035]
  Neurological disorders that affect speech production, such as Alzheimer's Disease (AD), significantly impact the lives of both patients and caregivers. Recent advancements in Large Language Model (LLM) architectures have developed many tools to identify representative features of neurological disorders through spontaneous speech. This paper presents an explainable LLM method, named SLIME, capable of identifying lexical components representative of AD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T21:45:02Z)
• Cognitive LLMs: Towards Integrating Cognitive Architectures and Large Language Models for Manufacturing Decision-making [51.737762570776006]
  LLM-ACTR is a novel neuro-symbolic architecture that provides human-aligned and versatile decision-making. Our framework extracts and embeds knowledge of ACT-R's internal decision-making process as latent neural representations. Our experiments on novel Design for Manufacturing tasks show both improved task performance as well as improved grounded decision-making capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T11:49:53Z)
• Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making [13.045050015831903]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising candidate for use in decision-making. They are limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. We introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T13:12:28Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Guiding Clinical Reasoning with Large Language Models via Knowledge Seeds [32.99251005719732]
  Clinical reasoning refers to the cognitive process that physicians employ in evaluating and managing patients. In this study, we introduce a novel framework, In-Context Padding (ICP), designed to enhance LLMs with medical knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T10:53:20Z)
• Neuro-Symbolic Integration Brings Causal and Reliable Reasoning Proofs [95.07757789781213]
  Two lines of approaches are adopted for complex reasoning with LLMs. One line of work prompts LLMs with various reasoning structures, while the structural outputs can be naturally regarded as intermediate reasoning steps. The other line of work adopt LLM-free declarative solvers to do the reasoning task, rendering higher reasoning accuracy but lacking interpretability due to the black-box nature of the solvers. We present a simple extension to the latter line of work. Specifically, we showcase that the intermediate search logs generated by Prolog interpreters can be accessed and interpreted into human-readable reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T11:26:21Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• Diagnostic Reasoning Prompts Reveal the Potential for Large Language Model Interpretability in Medicine [4.773117448586697]
  We develop novel diagnostic reasoning prompts to study whether large language models (LLMs) can perform clinical reasoning to accurately form a diagnosis. We find GPT4 can be prompted to mimic the common clinical reasoning processes of clinicians without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-13T19:04:07Z)
• Context-dependent Explainability and Contestability for Trustworthy Medical Artificial Intelligence: Misclassification Identification of Morbidity Recognition Models in Preterm Infants [0.0]
  Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address this requirement by clarifying AI reasoning to support the end users. We built our methodology on three main pillars: decomposing the feature set by leveraging clinical context latent space, assessing the clinical association of global explanations, and Latent Space Similarity (LSS) based local explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-17T07:59:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.