aiqbench analysis
This study empirically demonstrates that while traditional machine learning models like Random Forest significantly outperform LLM-generated rule systems in predictive accuracy for heart disease, the latter offer a distinct advantage in interpretability through IF-THEN logic. The findings underscore a critical trade-off in medical AI development between high-performance black-box predictions and transparent, explainable diagnostic reasoning. For researchers balancing model efficacy with clinical trust, this work provides essential data on the current limitations of generating reliable rules directly from large language models.
Evaluating LLM-Generated Rules for Heart Disease Prediction
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 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 https://github.com/FeisalAlaswad/LLM-Rule-ML-Heart-Disease-Prediction .
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 .
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.13192 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.13192v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13192 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 295 words
Related coverage
Tech to Replace Animal Testing Is Almost Ready. Scientists Are Not
IEEE Spectrum · Sep 29, 2026
How GoFundMe became America’s backup plan
The Verge · Aug 24, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026