跳到主要內容
AI News HubLIVE
來源內容 · 翻譯待補全2 分鐘閱讀

待翻譯:Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction

文章摘要

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源摘要,待恢復後補全翻譯:arXiv:2609.13192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disease prediction using the UCI Heart Disease dataset. Several classifiers, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, Decision Tree, and Random Forest, were evaluated alongside rule-based systems generated using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics. Experimental results show that traditional machine learning models consistently outperform LLM-generated rule-based systems in predictive performance. Random Forest achieved the best overall performance with…

來源arXiv Machine Learning作者: Feisal Alaswad, Batoul Aljaddouh, Maher Alrahhal, Wafaa Al Nassan, Talal Bonn
待翻譯:Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction
回報錯誤

更正管道尚未開通,可先複製下方文章資訊留存。

查看更正說明
直接讀正文

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源正文,待恢復後補全翻譯。

[Submitted on 11 Aug 2026] Title:Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction, by Feisal Alaswad and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disease prediction using the UCI Heart Disease dataset. Several classifiers, including Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes, Decision Tree, and Random Forest, were evaluated alongside rule-based systems generated using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score metrics. Experimental results show that traditional machine learning models consistently outperform LLM-generated rule-based systems in predictive performance. Random Forest achieved the best overall performance with 90.2% accuracy, a precision of 0.829, perfect recall of 1.0, and an F1-score of 0.906. Naive Bayes followed closely with 88.5% accuracy and an F1-score of 0.881. In contrast, the LLM-generated rule models achieved lower performance, with Claude Sonnet 4.6 reaching 80.3% accuracy (F1-score: 0.833) and GPT-4o obtaining 70.5% accuracy (F1-score: 0.690). Despite the performance gap, the LLM-generated rules provide interpretable IF-THEN diagnostic logic that enhances explainability and transparency in clinical decision-making. These findings highlight the trade-off between predictive performance and interpretability in medical artificial intelligence systems. The complete implementation of all experiments, including machine learning models and LLM-derived rule classifiers, is publicly available in the GitHub repository at this https URL . Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2609.13192 [cs.LG] (or arXiv:2609.13192v1 [cs.LG] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13192 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite Submission history From: Feisal Alaswad [view email] [v1] Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:39:01 UTC (1,201 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction, by Feisal Alaswad and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.LG new | recent | 2026-09 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) IArxiv recommender toggle IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

展開要點與分析

文章情報

工程師進階

要點

  • AI 服務暫時不可用,系統已先保留來源內容與降級後設資料。
  • arXiv:2609.13192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study compares traditional machine learning models and Large Language Model (LLM)-generated rule-based systems for heart disea…

要點與分析由自動化流程生成,可能有誤,請結合原始來源核實。