Tree-of-Evidence: Efficient "System 2" Search for Faithful Multimodal Grounding
Organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology
Abstract
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) achieve state-of-the-art performance in high-stakes domains like healthcare, yet their reasoning remains opaque. Current interpretability methods, such as attention mechanisms or post-hoc saliency, often fail to faithfully represent the model's decision-making process, particularly when integrating heterogeneous modalities like time-series and text. We introduce Tree-of-Evidence (ToE), an inference-time search algorithm that frames interpretability as a discrete optimization problem. Rather than relying on soft attention weights, ToE employs lightweight Evidence Bottlenecks that score coarse groups or units of data (e.g., vital-sign windows, report sentences) and performs a beam search to identify the compact evidence set required to reproduce the model's prediction. We evaluate ToE across six tasks spanning three datasets and two domains: four clinical prediction tasks on MIMIC-IV, cross-center validation on eICU, and non-clinical fault detection on LEMMA-RCA. ToE produces auditable evidence traces while maintaining predictive performance, retaining over 0.98 of full-model AUROC with as few as five evidence units across all settings. Under sparse evidence budgets, ToE achieves higher decision agreement and lower probability fidelity error than other approaches. Qualitative analyses show that ToE adapts its search strategy: it often resolves straightforward cases using only vitals, while selectively incorporating text when physiological signals are ambiguous. ToE therefore provides a practical mechanism for auditing multimodal models by revealing which discrete evidence units support each prediction.
Figures & tables
| Method | Type | Hard Evidence? | Multimodal? | Faithfulness? | Auditable Trace? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attention Weights | Intrinsic (Soft) | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Gradient Saliency | Post-hoc | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ✗ |
| LIME / SHAP | Post-hoc Surrogate | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ |
| Concept Bottleneck | Intrinsic (Concepts) | ✓ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
| Tree-of-Evidence (Ours) | Inference Search | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Method | AUROC | Fidelity MAE ( ) | ECE ( ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LIME | 0.564 0.006 | 0.229 0.022 | 0.406 0.011 |
| SHAP | 0.764 0.009 | 0.123 0.006 | 0.320 0.010 | |
| ToE | 0.783 0.013 | 0.096 0.005 | 0.297 0.019 | |
| 5 | LIME | 0.695 0.010 | 0.171 0.016 | 0.332 0.018 |
| SHAP | 0.801 0.014 | 0.039 0.002 | 0.302 0.025 | |
| ToE | 0.800 0.017 | 0.040 0.003 | 0.280 0.023 |
| Model | Type | Params | AUROC | AUPRC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llama-3.2-1B | text | 1.2B | ||
| Llama-3.1-8B | text | 8.0B | ||
| Med42-v2-70B | text | 70B | ||
| MedGemma-27B (V) | vision | 27B | ||
| ToE | multi | 109M | 0.800 0.017 | 0.310 0.067 |
| Dataset | Task | Full AUROC | ToE | Fid. MAE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | MIMIC-IV | Hosp. mort. | 0.806 0.015 | 0.800 .017 | 0.040 0.003 |
| E2 | MIMIC-IV | Long LOS | 0.747 0.041 | 0.740 .046 | 0.031 0.002 |
| E3 | MIMIC-IV | ICU mort. | 0.816 0.009 | 0.808 .011 | 0.042 0.004 |
| E4 | MIMIC-IV | Post-obs. | 0.794 0.021 | 0.784 .023 | 0.041 0.001 |
| eICU | ICU mort. | 0.822 | 0.808 | 0.124 | |
| LEMMA | Fault det. | 0.741 | 0.730 | 0.106 |
| Modality | AUROC | AUPRC | Fidelity MAE |
|---|---|---|---|
| TS Only | |||
| Notes Only | |||
| Both |
| Configuration | AUROC | AUPRC | Fidelity MAE | Comp. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full ( , ) | ||||
| No Stability ( , ) | ||||
| No Sparsity ( , ) | ||||
| Top- Ranking (no search) |
| Metric | eICU | MIMIC-IV |
|---|---|---|
| TP search exhaustion rate | 0.3% | 7.2% |
| FP search exhaustion rate | 7.3% | 30.2% |
| FP / TP exhaustion ratio | 25.6 | 4.2 |
| Case A: Efficient Triage (Patient A) | Case B: Multimodal Synergy (Patient B) |
|---|---|
| Task: Mortality Prediction | Task: Mortality Prediction |
| Full Model Prob: (Low Risk) | Full Model Prob: (High Risk) |
| Final Trace: (Vitals Only) | Final Trace: (8 Vitals + 2 Notes) |
| Search Step 1: Add Vitals W5 Evidence: [Physiological Window 5] Sufficiency: (Threshold Met) | Search Steps 1–8: Add Vitals W23, W1, …, W11 Evidence: [Multiple Physiological Windows] Sufficiency: (Plateau) |
| Outcome: The search terminates immediately. The model determines that the vital signs alone are sufficient to justify the “Low Risk” prediction. No notes are processed. | Search Step 9: Add Note N2 Evidence: “…Coalescent, bilateral, perihilar opacities reflect alveolar edema… suggest volume overload.” Sufficiency: (Stable) |
| Search Step 10: Add Note N3 Evidence: [Additional Radiology Report] Sufficiency: (No Change) |
| Patient ID | Outcome | Prediction | Evidence Size ( ) | Jaccard | Key Insight | ||
| ToE | LLM | ToE | LLM | Overlap | |||
| 1 | Survived | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | 5 | 20.0% | ToE solved via single vital; LLM was cautious. |
| 2 | Survived | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | 9 | 50.0% | Strong agreement on deterioration intervals. |
| 3 | Died | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | 11 | 46.2% | Both flagged critical physiological decline. |
| 4 | Survived | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | 9 | 30.8% | LLM prioritized stable periods differently. |
| 5 | Died | ✗ | ✓ | 8 | 11 | 35.7% | Audit Win: ToE exposed model blindness to GCS. |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| E1: Hospital Mort. | E2: Long LOS | E3: ICU Mort. | E4: Post-Obs Mort. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 12 | ||||
| 16 |
| Beam Search (ToE) | Top- Ranking | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUROC | Fidelity MAE | AUROC | Fidelity MAE | |
| 1 | ||||
| 3 | ||||
| 5 | ||||
| 8 | ||||
| 12 | ||||
| Suff. AUROC ( ) | AUPRC ( ) | Suff. AUROC ( ) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.792 | 0.316 | 0.741 |
| 0.5 | 0.797 | 0.321 | 0.740 |
| 1.0 | 0.799 | 0.325 | 0.753 |
| 2.0 | 0.799 | 0.319 | 0.745 |
| 5.0 | 0.790 | 0.313 | 0.748 |
| Space | AUROC | Fid. MAE | Comp. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Probability | 0.755 | 0.090 | 0.029 |
| Logit | 0.749 | 0.100 | 0.040 | |
| 5 | Probability | 0.773 | 0.030 | 0.097 |
| Logit | 0.768 | 0.054 | 0.131 | |
| 12 | Probability | 0.773 | 0.014 | 0.130 |
| Logit | 0.769 | 0.051 | 0.189 |
| Dataset | ToE AUROC | Exhaustive | Gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIMIC-IV | 1 | 0.7550 | 0.7543 | +0.0007 |
| MIMIC-IV | 3 | 0.7706 | 0.7697 | +0.0009 |
| LEMMA-RCA | all | 0.7181 | 0.7252 |
| Hyperparameter | Range | Dataset(s) | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stability space | Prob vs. Logit | MIMIC + eICU | Prob-space 44% lower MAE |
| .70, .80, .90, .95 | eICU | Higher better fidelity | |
| (stability) | 0, 1.0 | MIMIC | doubles MAE |
Multimodal Model Interpretability
Multimodal model interpretability studies how AI systems combine and use images, text, audio, video, and other signals, and how to explain their decisions.
See all 126 papers