Causal Interpretations in Observational Studies: The Role of Sociocultural Backgrounds and Team Dynamics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12159v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 02:00:10 GMT
• Title: Causal Interpretations in Observational Studies: The Role of Sociocultural Backgrounds and Team Dynamics
• Authors: Jun Wang, Bei Yu,
• Abstract summary: We analyzed over 80,000 observational study abstracts using computational linguistic and regression methods.<n>We found that causal language is more frequently used by less experienced authors, smaller research teams, male last authors, and authors from countries with higher uncertainty avoidance indices.<n>These findings suggest that the use of causal language may be influenced by external factors such as the sociocultural backgrounds of authors and the dynamics of research collaboration.
• Score: 10.71018453873532
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The prevalence of drawing causal conclusions from observational studies has raised concerns about potential exaggeration in science communication. While some believe causal language should only apply to randomized controlled trials, others argue that rigorous methods can justify causal claims in observational studies. Ideally, causal language should align with the strength of the evidence. However, through the analysis of over 80,000 observational study abstracts using computational linguistic and regression methods, we found that causal language is more frequently used by less experienced authors, smaller research teams, male last authors, and authors from countries with higher uncertainty avoidance indices. These findings suggest that the use of causal language may be influenced by external factors such as the sociocultural backgrounds of authors and the dynamics of research collaboration. This newly identified link deepens our understanding of how such factors help shape scientific conclusions in causal inference and science communication.

Related papers

• Hypothesizing Missing Causal Variables with LLMs [55.28678224020973]
  We formulate a novel task where the input is a partial causal graph with missing variables, and the output is a hypothesis about the missing variables to complete the partial graph. We show the strong ability of LLMs to hypothesize the mediation variables between a cause and its effect. We also observe surprising results where some of the open-source models outperform the closed GPT-4 model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T10:37:44Z)
• Exploring Reasoning Biases in Large Language Models Through Syllogism: Insights from the NeuBAROCO Dataset [5.695579108997392]
  This paper explores the question of how accurately current large language models can perform logical reasoning in natural language. We present a syllogism dataset called NeuBAROCO, which consists of syllogistic reasoning problems in English and Japanese. Our experiments with leading large language models indicate that these models exhibit reasoning biases similar to humans, along with other error tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:10:50Z)
• A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences [5.141416267381492]
  We consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. We investigate the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning on syllogistic reasoning. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by cognitive science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T08:59:04Z)
• Prompting or Fine-tuning? Exploring Large Language Models for Causal Graph Validation [0.0]
  This study explores the capability of Large Language Models to evaluate causality in causal graphs. Our study compares two approaches: (1) prompting-based method for zero-shot and few-shot causal inference and, (2) fine-tuning language models for the causal relation prediction task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T09:06:18Z)
• Smoke and Mirrors in Causal Downstream Tasks [59.90654397037007]
  This paper looks at the causal inference task of treatment effect estimation, where the outcome of interest is recorded in high-dimensional observations.<n>We compare 6 480 models fine-tuned from state-of-the-art visual backbones, and find that the sampling and modeling choices significantly affect the accuracy of the causal estimate.<n>Our results suggest that future benchmarks should carefully consider real downstream scientific questions, especially causal ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T13:26:34Z)
• CausalGym: Benchmarking causal interpretability methods on linguistic tasks [52.61917615039112]
  We use CausalGym to benchmark the ability of interpretability methods to causally affect model behaviour. We study the pythia models (14M--6.9B) and assess the causal efficacy of a wide range of interpretability methods. We find that DAS outperforms the other methods, and so we use it to study the learning trajectory of two difficult linguistic phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:35:56Z)
• Understanding Fine-grained Distortions in Reports of Scientific Findings [46.96512578511154]
  Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public is crucial.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:00:01Z)
• Zero-shot Causal Graph Extrapolation from Text via LLMs [50.596179963913045]
  We evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to infer causal relations from natural language. LLMs show competitive performance in a benchmark of pairwise relations without needing (explicit) training samples. We extend our approach to extrapolating causal graphs through iterated pairwise queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T13:14:38Z)
• Causal Inference in Natural Language Processing: Estimation, Prediction, Interpretation and Beyond [38.055142444836925]
  We consolidate research across academic areas and situate it in the broader Natural Language Processing landscape. We introduce the statistical challenge of estimating causal effects, encompassing settings where text is used as an outcome, treatment, or as a means to address confounding. In addition, we explore potential uses of causal inference to improve the performance, robustness, fairness, and interpretability of NLP models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T05:40:08Z)
• ACRE: Abstract Causal REasoning Beyond Covariation [90.99059920286484]
  We introduce the Abstract Causal REasoning dataset for systematic evaluation of current vision systems in causal induction. Motivated by the stream of research on causal discovery in Blicket experiments, we query a visual reasoning system with the following four types of questions in either an independent scenario or an interventional scenario. We notice that pure neural models tend towards an associative strategy under their chance-level performance, whereas neuro-symbolic combinations struggle in backward-blocking reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-26T02:42:38Z)

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.