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 · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 27, 2026, 1:06 AM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 8, 2026, 2:53 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

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.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.