Skip to content
AI Atlas
Papercs.AI

LLMs as Post-hoc Auditors of Physiological Plausibility in Symbolic Regression: A Clinician-Evaluated Case Study

Published 12 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.11431

quality89

Updated 3 h ago · first seen 12 Sept 2026

paper_01M29X34MT4BP5JE3EJ3M5K8TR

Abstract

Genetic Programming and its variants, such as grammatical evolution, are widely used in Symbolic Regression to derive mathematical expressions from multivariate data. In addition to predictive accuracy, models are appreciated for their potential to provide interpretability, offering explicit equations that relate input variables to outcomes. However, achieving interpretability and plausibility remains challenging, as evolved models may be complex or scientifically inconsistent. In this study, we explore whether Large Language Models, can assist in improving the explainability of Symbolic Regression models generated by evolutionary computation methods. Building upon our previous work on estimating body fat percentage using grammar-based Genetic Programming , we investigate the use of LLMs as post-processing tools to analyze and rank evolved expressions according to their interpretability and medical plausibility. Four symbolic expressions are analysed by three LLMs over three repeated runs, and the resulting interpretations and rankings are assessed by a panel of three clinicians. Across the three LLMs, comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations. However, the LLMs also produced physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations, indicating that they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.\blfootnote{The present work is an extended version of a paper submitted into a journal.

Authors

Authors 9

Esther MaquedaJ. Ignacio HidalgoJ. Manuel VelascoJesus Moreno-FernandezJorge L\'opez-VarelaJos\'e-Manuel Mu\~nozOmar Costilla-ReyesOscar GarnicaTom\'as Gonz\'alez-Vidal

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 1

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 1

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI feedT1· Official3 h ago2

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.