A two-stage framework for medical hypothesis verification in multiple-choice settings that manages this tradeoff through targeted ontology grounding, applied only when the model abstains, and shows that abstention is not random but reflects genuine uncertainty, with abstained predictions associated with lower confidence.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) often rely on shortcuts rather than systematic reasoning, raising safety concerns in medical applications. Allowing models to abstain when uncertain improves reliability but introduces a coverage accuracy tradeoff. We propose a two-stage framework for medical hypothesis verification in multiple-choice settings that manages this tradeoff through targeted ontology grounding, applied only when the model abstains. We show that abstention is not random but reflects genuine uncertainty, with abstained predictions associated with lower confidence. Across two frontier models (GPT-5.5, accessed via the Azure OpenAI API, and DeepSeek-R1), the proposed framework improves question-level accuracy by 9.6 percentage points (82.9% to 92.5%) and hypothesis-level accuracy by 4.2 percentage points (92.0% to 96.2%). Our experiments conducted on MedReason and MedQA show that abstention can be repurposed as a control signal for selective reasoning refinement, achieving knowledge-graph-level performance without explicit knowledge graph construction.
TKFQA, a factuality consistency benchmark comprising 10,130 question-answering (QA) pairs grounded in tables, texts, and knowledge graphs, is introduced and ORLF, an LLM-agnostic training framework that models cross-context topological relations through knowledge-specific latent vectors is proposed.
Shibo Chu, Yuze Liu, Tiehua Zhang et al.· 0 citations
A probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers is paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing, indicating an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.
Jailbreak robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9\,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1\%--51.0\% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.
Qilong Wu, Sahil Wadhwa, Pranab Mohanty et al.· 0 citations
Evidence-based medicine demands strict logical consistency, yet current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) prioritize superficial label matching over genuine reasoning. We introduce LogiMed-RoB, a benchmark grounded in Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 expert logic, comprising 860 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14,820 queries. It evaluates models under the Hierarchical Logical Consistency (HLC) framework across four dimensions: Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness. Experiments on 10 state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a catastrophic Error Compounding Effect: despite the top model reaching 98.88% Atomic Consistency, its end-to-end consistency collapses to 45.13%, with several open-weight architectures plummeting to nearly 0%. We further uncover a systematic evidence-reasoning gap: even when models retrieve high-quality evidence, they fail to deduce correct outcomes in 18.63-40.05% of cases, while Blind Guess Rates reach 48.28%. LogiMed-RoB demonstrates that high outcome accuracy can conceal critical reasoning flaws, underscoring the necessity of white-box logical verification for clinical deployment.
Jiayu Huang, Zichen Tang, Qianhui Ling et al.· 0 citations
The results show that QA evaluation should account for how inferential relations compose across a reasoning trace, rather than relying only on final answers or LLMs as verifiers.
Guneet Singh Kohli, Yuxiang Zhou, M. Schlichtkrull et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The effect of Large Language Model (LLM) scale on ontology learning (OL) performance remains insufficiently characterized. We present a controlled evaluation of 13 models spanning dense and Mixture-of-Experts variants from the Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 lineages, together with proprietary GPT release variants, using the OntoLearner retrieval-augmented generation pipeline. All models are evaluated with the same embedding model, retrieval configuration, prompt templates, decoding settings, datasets, and metrics on term typing, taxonomy discovery, and non-taxonomic relationship extraction across four biomedical and materials science and engineering ontologies. Within the dense Qwen3.5 lineage, increasing parameter count primarily improves precision rather than recall, with the largest gains occurring between 9B and 27B parameters. However, the effect of scale is neither monotonic nor uniform across tasks and domains. Dense 27B models outperform substantially larger sparse models on term typing, whereas larger Mixture-of-Experts models achieve the strongest open-weight results on taxonomy discovery. Non-taxonomic relationship extraction remains difficult across model scales, particularly for the Materials Data Science ontology. Performance differences across matched Qwen variants and proprietary GPT releases further indicate that architecture and model lineage can outweigh nominal parameter count. These findings show that model size alone is an insufficient selection criterion for OL and provide empirical guidance for reproducible LLM-assisted ontology engineering.
Hamed Babaei Giglou, S. Auer, Jennifer D’Souza· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
