When Evidence Conflicts: Uncertainty and Order Effects in Retrieval-Augmented Biomedical Question Answering

Biomedical question answering often requires decisions from retrieved literature whose relevance, quality, and support for candidate answers are uneven. Most retrieval-augmented large language model (LLM) methods feed this literature to the model as flat text, leaving evidence reliability and remaining uncertainty largely implicit. We propose BELIEF, a structured evidence modeling and uncertainty-aware fusion framework for closed-set biomedical question answering. Rather than treating retrieved documents as undifferentiated context, BELIEF converts them into evidence objects that record clinical attributes, source quality, question relevance, support strength, and the associated candidate hypothesis. These evidence objects provide a shared basis for two complementary reasoning paths. The symbolic path constructs reliability-weighted basic probability assignments based on Dempster--Shafer (D-S) theory over a finite answer space and performs uncertainty-aware symbolic evidence fusion to estimate belief and residual uncertainty. The neural path uses the same structured evidence for LLM-based semantic inference, while a reliability-aware arbitration module reconciles the symbolic and neural outputs according to belief strength, uncertainty, evidence reliability, and semantic consistency. Experiments on PubMedQA, MedQA, and MedMCQA with five general-purpose LLM backbones show that BELIEF obtains the best result in 25 of 30 backbone--dataset--metric settings. Comparisons with biomedical-domain models indicate that BELIEF is competitive on MedQA and MedMCQA, while specialized biomedical pretraining remains advantageous on PubMedQA. Ablation, complementarity, uncertainty-stratified, and cost analyses further show that BELIEF improves retrieved-evidence utilization by making evidence structure, path disagreement, and decision uncertainty explicit.

Medical question answering is a high-stakes setting where factual errors can have serious consequences. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely viewed as a promising solution, and prior work has reported substantial gains for large medical QA models. We revisit this assumption across a broad range of open-weight instruction-tuned models spanning 7B to 72B parameters. Across five models, ten biomedical QA datasets, four retrieval methods, and four retrieval corpora, we find that retrieval yields only small and inconsistent improvements over a no-retrieval baseline, typically within 1-2 points. In contrast, the choice of backbone model has a much larger effect than the choice of retriever or corpus, and expert and layman retrieval sources perform similarly in most settings. These results suggest that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality alone, but the model's limited ability to use retrieved evidence effectively.

Biomedical fact-checking systems must do more than predict whether a claim is supported, contradicted, or unaddressed: they should also produce evidence that is faithful, complete, and useful for verification. We study this evidence-generation setting on CARE-XAI, a unified benchmark spanning five biomedical and health fact-checking sources. We compare base instruction LLMs, PubMed retrieval-augmented LLMs, fine-tuned LLMs, label-only LLMs, and biomedical encoder classifiers under a shared evaluation protocol. Biomedical classifiers remain strongest for verdict-only prediction, while fine-tuned LLMs are the strongest evidence-generating systems. PubMed retrieval is mixed: it helps PubMed-aligned sources such as PubMedQA and SciFact, but can distract models on broader public-health claims. We introduce Bio-GRACE, a gold-reference-normalized diagnostic for measuring whether retrieved evidence recovers the decision benefit of reference evidence. Bio-GRACE shows that retrieval utility is source-dependent, motivates selective retrieval, and exposes why retrieval recall and lexical evidence overlap are insufficient for biomedical fact-checking.