The UIC-AIHealth4All system was presented for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. It participated in evidence identification, answer generation, and answer‑evidence alignment, using an answer‑first pipeline that generates candidate answers with cited note sentences before classifying the full evidence set. The system ranked third in evidence identification, ninth in answer generation, and fifth in answer‑evidence alignment, and a linguistic analysis showed its outputs were harder to read than clinician‑authored references, highlighting the need for readability optimization in clinical NLP.
By Mohammad Arvan, Hossein Haeri, Natalie Parde, Rebecca T. Feinstein
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
By Qiao Jin, Yin Fang, Lauren He, Yifan Yang, Guangzhi Xiong, Zhizheng Wang, Nicholas Wan, Joey Chan, Donald C. Comeau, Robert Leaman, Charalampos S. Floudas, Aidong Zhang, Michael F. Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu
arXiv:2606. 15735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Discharge summaries are crucial clinical documents containing the context of a patient's overall hospital stay, and are routinely reviewed by medical experts for patient readmission, ongoing care, and diagnostic decision-making.
By Jiyoun Kim, Muhan Yeo, Eunhye Jang, Jeewon Yang, Hangyul Yoon, Su Ji Lee, Hee Jo Han, Hee-Jae Jung, Doyun Kwon, Jun young Lee, Jaehun Lee, Jung-Oh Lee, Sunjun Kweon, Jong Hak Moon, Daseul Kim, Minjae Cho, Edward Choi
arXiv:2601.03418v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Trustworthy clinical summarization requires every claim to be traceable to its evidence, yet existing attribution often resolves only to the senten...
By Bohao Chu, Hendrik Damm, Tabea M. G. Pakull, Sameh Frihat, Georg Lodde, Elisabeth Livingstone, Christoph M. Friedrich, Norbert Fuhr
arXiv:2607. 19678v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer.
By Guneet Singh Kohli, Yuxiang Zhou, Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Gregory E Dean, Maria Liakata
MedRAGChecker is a claim-level verification framework designed for biomedical retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It decomposes generated answers into atomic claims and assesses each claim’s support by combining evidence‑grounded natural language inference with biomedical knowledge‑graph consistency signals. The aggregated claim decisions provide diagnostics that distinguish retrieval and generation failures, such as faithfulness, under‑evidence, contradiction, and safety‑critical errors, and the system is distilled into compact models for scalable evaluation.
By Yuelyu Ji, Min Gu Kwak, Hang Zhang, Xizhi Wu, Chenyu Li, Yanshan Wang
CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.
By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
arXiv:2611.06090v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: This paper presents an overview of \emph{SciClaimEval}, a pilot task at NTCIR-19 on verifying scientific claims against the tables and figures of the p...
By Xanh Ho, Andr\'{e} Greiner-Petter, Florian Boudin, Yun-Ang Wu, Sunisth Kumar, Tian Cheng Xia, Hiba Akbi, Tim Schopf, Akiko Aizawa
This paper presents an overview of \emph{SciClaimEval}, a pilot task at NTCIR-19 on verifying scientific claims against the tables and figures of the papers in which they appear. Our dataset pairs aut...
The paper "Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models" reports a small-scale study evaluating eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses. The authors introduce an evaluation framework and annotate 1,067 evidence points across six criteria, using nine metrics to assess performance. Results show that while LLMs have strong recall, they frequently fail to provide valid scientific articles, evidence, or reject unsupported hypotheses, revealing a critical limitation for their use in healthcare.
By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva
The paper introduces BRIE, a continuously maintainable benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in electronic health record (EHR) information retrieval. It presents a scalable framework that automatically generates question–answer pairs from longitudinal EHR notes, validated by nineteen clinicians. The benchmark allows assessment of multiple inference strategies and highlights that state‑of‑the‑art LLMs often miss clinically important information, especially when synthesis across documents is required.
By Jordan L. Cahoon, Chloe O. Stanwyck, Sulaiman Somani, Philip Chung, Kevin R Keet, Kameron C. Black, Andrea T. Fisher, Sarita Khemani, Jerry Liu, Stephen Ma, Saloni K. Maharaj, Rita M. Pandya, Eduardo Perez-Guerrero, Priyanka Pillai, Lisa Shieh, David J. H. Wu, James Xie, James C. McAvoy, Teresa Nguyen, Jessica Tran, Lucy Yin, Bridget Lin, Alison Callahan, Jason A. Fries, Nigam H. Shah, Emily Alsentzer
arXiv:2609.24799v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Post-training quantization (PTQ) enables efficient deployment of large language models, and PTQ methods are usually optimized and evaluated with generi...
By Yeji Kim, Mi-Young Kim, Randy Goebel