Multi-Agent Causal Reasoning for Suicide Ideation Detection Through Online Conversations
Jun Li, Xiangmeng Wang, Haoyang Li, Yifei Yan, Shijie Zhang, Hong Va Leong, Ling Feng, Nancy Xiaonan Yu, Qing Li
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Suicide remains a pressing global public health concern. While social media platforms offer opportunities for early risk detection through online conversation trees, existing approaches face two major limitations: (1) They rely on predefined rules (e.g., quotes or relies) to log conversations that capture only a narrow spectrum of user interactions, and (2) They overlook hidden influences such as user conformity and ...
suicide copycat behavior, which can significantly affect suicidal expression and propagation in online communities. To address these limitations, we propose a Multi-Agent Causal Reasoning (MACR) framework that collaboratively employs a Reasoning Agent to scale user interactions and a Bias-aware Decision-Making Agent to mitigate harmful biases arising from hidden influences. The Reasoning Agent integrates cognitive appraisal theory to generate counterfactual user reactions to posts, thereby scaling user interactions. It analyses these reactions through structured dimensions, i.e., cognitive, emotional, and behavioral patterns, with a dedicated sub-agent responsible for each dimension. The Bias-aware Decision-Making Agent mitigates hidden biases through a front-door adjustment strategy, leveraging the counterfactual user reactions produced by the Reasoning Agent. Through the collaboration of reasoning and bias-aware decision making, the proposed MACR framework not only alleviates hidden biases, but also enriches contextual information of user interactions with counterfactual knowledge. Extensive experiments on real-world conversational datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of MACR in identifying suicide risk.
Researcher verdict
Useful paper, but implementation path is weak
This page is useful as a benchmark reference and for scoping a cautious reproduction plan, but there is not enough implementation evidence yet to treat it as a trusted build baseline.
Why this page is still worth reading
- Benchmark findings give you an audit trail for validation before picking an implementation path.
- Reproduction risks are surfaced explicitly, which helps decide whether the paper is worth immediate prototyping.
Benchmark trust
Concrete benchmark findings are present and can be audited against the extracted evidence.
Use this page as
Use this page to audit benchmark claims and scope a cautious reproduction plan.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | In-Context Learning (ICL) | Weighted-Precision | 0.4064 | llm-grounded | researcherSummary.benchmarkSnapshot[0]paper.abstract |
| Agentic tool use | Chain-of-Thought (CoT) | Weighted-Precision | 0.4077 | llm-grounded | researcherSummary.benchmarkSnapshot[1]paper.abstract |
Suicide remains a pressing global public health concern.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 75/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
What is known right now
This page is not strong enough for a full AI-written research brief yet, so the summary is reduced to what is evidenced, what is missing, and what to do next.
What is known
- Suicide remains a pressing global public health concern.
- Benchmark anchor: Agentic tool use on In-Context Learning (ICL) using Weighted-Precision.
What is missing
- Benchmark evidence is not yet strong enough to treat the LLM brief as fully researcher-ready.
- There is no verified maintained implementation path yet.
What to do next
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction path
Follow this baseline workflow to decide if this paper is worth immediate prototyping.
- 1
Use the paper and benchmark evidence to scope a baseline reproduction plan.
- 2
Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Agentic systems
Domains
AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.