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.
By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
The study examines whether large language models truly base legal verdicts on the statutes or precedents they cite. By fixing case facts and swapping the cited authority with an unrelated one, researchers found that while models correctly name the authority 66.7%-100% of the time, the resulting verdict often remains unchanged—only 0.0%-21.7% of the time on CaseHOLD, 30.0%-76.7% on ECHR and SCOTUS, and 43.3%-50.0% on ContractNLI. Even a purpose‑built legal‑reasoning model and larger scales did not close this gap, and adversarial instructions further exposed vulnerabilities in verdict consistency.
By Saisab Sadhu, Shreeyans Arora, Pratinav Seth
arXiv:2608.30676v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When medical AI systems hallucinate clinical reasoning, the consequences extend beyond incorrect answers: fabricated justifications that superficially...
By Jiangwang Chen, Chenghao Zhang, Hengxing Cai
The study evaluates whether reward‑trained language models can learn to keep evidence‑sufficiency boundaries without a formal correctness signal. Using a controlled knock‑in design, a boundary‑keeping recipe (SFT followed by GRPO) dramatically increased spontaneous correct refusals from 25 % to 100 %, while a scrambled‑pairing placebo collapsed performance. The results show that final boundary‑keeping is trainable without an inference‑time verifier, though active numeric checking remains negligible.
By YaJie Yin
The paper presents a clinician‑led safety guardrail for mental‑health chatbots that replaces typical prompt‑engineering or Constitutional AI methods. Two clinicians design, finalize, and adjudicate a rule base of four safety checks, which is formally verified for internal consistency and applied to LLM outputs. The verification layer’s verdicts are recomputable from a named rule and sixteen facts, and it consistently avoids false crisis‑resource demands that a matched LLM judge frequently raises.
By Chenhan Lyu, Kit Wislocki, Sarah Elizabeth Stoeckl, Maitreyi Sinha, Amir Rahmani
ClaimScope is a 72‑task benchmark that audits mathematical claims by requiring a verdict, scope, counterexample, and repair, covering areas such as optimizer‑state transport and exact $2 imes2$ linear algebra. The study evaluates Qwen3‑8B using a witness checker that only examines the model’s submitted state, showing that verifier feedback improves counterexample acceptance and safe completions compared to generic feedback. The results demonstrate that separating claim classification from executable evidence can yield gains in witness‑structure correction without necessarily improving broader reasoning.
By Mushir Akhtar