arXiv Computation and Language By Joe Cecil, Marjorie Freedman

Beyond Majority Vote: Multi-Perspective Adjudication for Medical Hallucination Detection

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper presents a multi‑perspective annotation framework for detecting medical hallucinations in chatbot responses. It combines first‑pass annotators, a large language model acting as a judge (LaJ) for candidate discovery, and two adjudication stages—medical‑expert review and evidence‑based fact‑checking. The study finds that single‑pass labeling undercounts errors, while multi‑pass adjudication improves coverage but still depends on expert judgment and evidence.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

Beyond Majority Vote: Multi-Perspective Adjudication for Medical Hallucination Detection

The paper investigates how to better detect factual errors, or hallucinations, in long-form medical chatbot responses. It introduces a multi‑perspective annotation workflow that combines first‑pass labeling, a large language model acting as a judge (LaJ) to surface candidate errors, and two adjudication steps—expert medical review and evidence‑based fact‑checking. The study finds that single‑pass benchmarks miss many errors, that LaJ alone is insufficient, and that adjudicators disagree, indicating that multi‑pass adjudication improves coverage but still depends on human judgment and evidence.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

MedFabric: Gold Evidence Hides the Difficulty of Word-Level Medical Fabrication Detection

MedFabric is a new benchmark for detecting word‑level medical fabrications, comprising 646 fabricated statements each paired with a ground‑truth passage that shares the same LLM authorship and nearly identical wording. The study shows that current detectors perform poorly—expert clinicians achieve only 53.3% macro‑F1 and no detector family surpasses 60% without gold evidence—highlighting that detection hinges on evidence correctness rather than subtlety of fabrication. The authors demonstrate that a retrieval‑confidence gate can substantially improve performance, raising macro‑F1 from 61% to 74%.

By Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Qian Qian, Xiaofeng Lin, Dongxu Zhang, Jun Han, Zhichao Yang, Davin Hill, Tamer Soliman, Sanjit Singh Batra, Robert Tillman, Guang Cheng
arXiv AI
1d ago

Scaling Clinical Judgment to Evaluate Medical AI

arXiv:2609.12822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)....

By Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur, Byron Crowe, Anthony M. Pettinato, Aashna P. Shah, Adrian D. Haimovich, Liam G. McCoy, Daniel Restrepo, Jason A. Freed, Ethan Goh, Jonathan H. Chen, Laura Zwaan, Katherine E. Goodman, Daniel J. Morgan, Raja-Elie E. Abdulnour, Adam Rodman, Arjun K. Manrai
arXiv AI
Jun 15

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

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