Accident reports provide a detailed account of environmental causes, unsafe human behaviors, and subsequent chain reactions. These records serve as essential resources for analyzing accident mechanisms and exploring potential risk patterns within production safety processes. Currently, Graph based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) with Knowledge Graphs (KGs), has emerged as a leading approach for complex causal question answering over extensive unstructured accident documentation. However, the application of this technology in the production safety domain still encounters two primary challenges. First, knowledge graph construction using a single granularity fails to capture fine-grained case details and macro-level standard systems. Second, traditional one-step retrieval paradigms lack the capacity to track deep causal chains or interpret the complex logic of multi-factor coupling. To address these limitations, we propose CausalAgent, a hierarchical graph-enhanced multi-agent framework for causal question answering in production safety accident reports. This framework innovatively combines a Hierarchical Causal Graph (HC-Graph) and a Multi-Agent Collaborative Reasoning (MACR) mechanism. Specifically, the HC-Graph employs a two-layer architecture that links a fine-grained instance layer with a national standard causation layer to resolve conflicts in semantic granularity. The MACR mechanism converts complex natural language queries into executable structured queries and logic verification steps through the sequential cooperation of four specialized agents, namely the Graph Parsing Agent, the Problem Analysis Agent, the Query Generation Agent, and the Reasoning Insight Agent. CausalAgent enables in-depth mining of accident causation mechanisms and provides scientific, robust and interpretable intelligent support for data-driven risk assessment and emergency decision-making. Experiments on real-world accident datasets demonstrate that CausalAgent achieves a 100.0% query execution rate and an 87.3% reasoning accuracy, outperforming the SOTA baseline by 45.2% in terms of absolute accuracy.
Wang et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: