arXiv Computer Vision By Danai Brilli, Maria Georgila

Identity or Evidence? Auditing Evidence Dependence in Agentic Life-Science Benchmarks

Read the original on arXiv Computer Vision →

The paper investigates how agentic life‑science benchmarks assess reasoning over evidence by independently varying the identity of a named entity and the evidence provided. Experiments on a clinical‑outcome benchmark and tasks from Biomni and LAB‑Bench show that blinding the identity has little effect when the prompt contains decisive evidence, but dramatically reduces performance when the prompt is mainly a name and candidate list. Across 96 LAB‑Bench LitQA2 questions, the performance gap widens under a fixed passage‑redaction scheme, and a no‑evidence recall probe on the clinical benchmark matches prediction accuracy and recovers a database‑specific programme count.

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 Computer Vision.

arXiv AI
Aug 11

CliniCARE-Bench: Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR

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.

By Veronica Chatrath, Bryan Zhu, George Pu, Jingxuan Fan, Apaar Shanker, Varun Ursekar, Anahita Sharma, Jason Qin, Keqi Han, Soham Dinesh Tiwari, Soham Dan, Vijay Kalmath, Yuan Li, Daniel Yue Zhang, Chenguang Wang, Zainab Doctor, Zhijun Yin, Nigam H. Shah, Yuan Xue
arXiv AI
Sep 30

When Tools Silently Lie: Evaluating and Mitigating Blind Compliance in Tool-Augmented Data Agents

The paper introduces ToxicBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate how tool‑augmented data agents handle incorrect tool outputs. By pairing clean and poisoned observations across numerical, label, schema, and retrieval errors, the authors assess both the checking process and the final answer adoption. In a 118‑task GPT evaluation, poisoning reduces task success by 26–39 percentage points, revealing that repeated poisoning leads to wrong-answer adoption even after checking, while ordinary retries help only under one‑shot poisoning. Human annotations on 200 trajectories confirm the scoring system’s reliability, showing 96% agreement with task success and supporting the benefits of retries and audit‑based adoption.

By Zifu Tao, Changqing Yin
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 5

Auditable Clinical Timeline Reconstruction with Provenance-Aware Evidence Graphs

The study evaluates an auditable patient‑timeline reconstruction system that tracks provenance, records revisions, and refuses to answer when evidence is missing. Using a synthetic corpus of 1,000 patients and 3,353 notes, two provenance‑aware Evidence Graph operators reduced graph size by 33–37% while preserving all answers across 6,813 query points; a fixed‑window baseline failed to answer over half of the points. The system’s evidence‑gating mechanisms (BioClinicalBERT and a zero‑shot LLM) responded appropriately to evidence‑unavailable controls, but performance varied on marker‑free controls, with BERT maintaining high accuracy but the LLM’s coverage dropping sharply. "whyItMatters":"The results demonstrate that provenance‑aware evidence graphs can significantly reduce data complexity while maintaining answer integrity, highlighting a practical approach to building auditable clinical NLP systems."

arXiv AI
Sep 7

TruthInsightBench: An Evidence-Grounded Benchmark for Automated Evaluation of Open-Ended Scientific Discovery Agents

TruthInsightBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate automated scientific discovery agents by presenting them with 40 blind tasks drawn from peer‑reviewed studies across ten domains. Each task provides only a neutral objective and frozen data, withholding source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths, forcing agents to determine which claim the data support. A fixed LLM‑based judge scores agents on evidentiary maturity across six dimensions, using 29 artifact‑grounded items, enabling fully automated, repeatable evaluation without human grading.

By Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang, Hao Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 5

Agents Catching Agents: Shortcut Cascades and Benchmark Gaming in Clinical Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv:2608. 03744v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace.

By Sebasti\'an Andr\'es Cajas Ord\'o\~nez, Agastya Munnangi, Aldo Marzullo, Felipe Ocampo Osorio, Quang Bui, Mohammad Shahin, Armaan Grewal, Emmanuel Paul Kwesiga, Anqi Peter Li, Josephine Nanyonjo, Aaditya Panchal, Arshnoor Bhutani, Nikhil Jaiswal, Milit S. Patel, Maximin Lange, Leo Anthony Celi