The paper introduces VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that converts clinical trial matching tasks into SMT problems to ensure consistent policy application and accountable decisions. VERDICT outperforms other LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines on accuracy, achieves perfect policy consistency, and generates clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions. It also demonstrates improved counterfactual self‑faithfulness, meaning changes in pivotal conditions appropriately alter decisions.
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
arXiv:2608.30676v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When medical AI systems hallucinate clinical reasoning, the consequences extend beyond incorrect answers: fabricated justifications that superficially...
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
LogiMed‑RoB is a new benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) on hierarchical logical consistency in medical risk‑of‑bias assessments, using 860 randomized controlled trials and 14,820 queries based on Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 expert logic. The benchmark evaluates models across four dimensions—Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness—revealing a catastrophic error‑compounding effect where high atomic accuracy does not translate to end‑to‑end consistency. Experiments on ten state‑of‑the‑art LLMs show that even top models can fail to deduce correct outcomes in a significant portion of cases, highlighting a gap between evidence retrieval and reasoning. whyItMatters":"The study shows that high outcome accuracy can mask critical reasoning flaws, emphasizing the need for white‑box logical verification before deploying LLMs in clinical settings."
arXiv:2608. 12645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling.
arXiv:2603. 24481v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Miscalibrated confidence scores are a practical obstacle to deploying AI in clinical settings.
arXiv:2606. 14149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare settings, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses risks when clinical decisions are involved.
The paper introduces the Wiggle Framework, a unified stress test for assessing epistemic stability in large language model (LLM) judges. It evaluates judge robustness across three dimensions—Mechanical Consistency, Single-turn Conviction, and Multi-turn Persistence—using 9 frontier models on 14 judging tasks related to safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation. Results show significant instability, with verdict flips ranging from 25–71% under static pushback and 62–91% when challenged by an adversarial LLM, and highlight that successful pressure often misaligns with ground truth.
The paper "trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories" examines the limitations of outcome-only evaluation for large language model agents. Using a deterministic tool‑using support‑desk environment with a scripted oracle policy and a fault injector, the authors compare five different judging approaches—programmatic rules, outcome‑only, step‑rubric at two model sizes, and a self‑consistency ensemble—on metrics such as detection, step localisation, fault typing, calibration, and cost across 400 trajectories. The study finds that outcome‑only judges miss many silent faults and generate false positives, while step‑rubric judges achieve higher recall with no false alarms but at greater cost, and that none of the judges read the final reply, allowing fabricated promises to evade detection. "whyItMatters":"The findings highlight that current production‑default outcome‑only evaluations can overlook critical failures in agent behavior, underscoring the need for more nuanced, step‑level judging methods to ensure reliable LLM agent performance."
arXiv:2608. 07796v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably.
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.