arXiv AI
When More Evidence Hurts: Publication-Bias Drift and Principled Stopping for Biomedical Causal Search
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 21
When More Evidence Hurts: Publication-Bias Drift and Principled Stopping for Biomedical Causal Search
Automated biomedical evidence synthesis depends on retrieving published studies, but the biomedical literature is systematically skewed toward positive findings. Deeper retrieval can therefore make a...
arXiv AI
1d ago
Search Shapes Conclusions: Auditing Evidence Selection Bias in Deep Research Agents
arXiv:2609.39026v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep Research agents synthesize evidence into cited reports, yet a well-cited report can still reach a misleading conclusion. Citation correctness chec...
arXiv AI
Aug 26
Generating Biomedical Fact-Checking Reports with RL-Enhanced Agentic Search
The paper introduces BioCheck Agent, an LLM-based system that generates structured biomedical fact‑checking reports using agentic search and a reinforcement‑learning framework called EG‑GRPO. Unlike prior methods that output only supported or refuted labels, BioCheck Agent synthesizes conclusions with retrieved evidence from PubMed, employing advanced Boolean search operators. Experiments show that, compared to the base Qwen3.5‑4B model, BioCheck Agent improves label prediction accuracy on SciFact by 9.95 %, raises evidence quality by 3.7 %, and reduces hallucinations by 19.63 %.
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago
Stale-Document Poisoning: When Outdated Retrieval Overrides Correct Model Answers
The paper introduces "stale‑document poisoning," a temporal alignment failure where outdated retrieval evidence causes retrieval‑augmented generation models to produce incorrect answers even when the model could answer correctly without retrieval. A benchmark of 317 verified knowledge reversals across medicine, law, software, and platform policy shows that outdated evidence flips 30–37% of Llama and Qwen answers, rising to 66–75% when models are explicitly instructed to trust the document. The study demonstrates that providing explicit validity information and a recency‑aware re‑ranker can substantially reduce poisoning, highlighting the need for models to assess whether retrieved evidence remains applicable.
arXiv AI
Sep 2
Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 12
MOSAIC: Query-Aware Exploration Policy Adaptation for GraphRAG
MOSAIC is a training‑free framework that adapts Graph Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) to each query by converting query‑specific evidence needs into a bounded policy over seed selection, traversal, stopping, and evidence selection. It keeps the corpus graph, indexes, scoring, grounding, and answer generation shared, while an LLM analyzer tailors the exploration strategy per query. On GraphRAG‑Bench, MOSAIC improves answer correctness by over 5 points on Medical and 4 points on Novel, achieves high evidence recall and context relevancy, and reduces path and evidence evaluations compared to fixed policies.