BELIEF: Structured Evidence Modeling and Uncertainty-Aware Fusion for Biomedical Question Answering

Biomedical retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) often face evidence that is incomplete, misleading, or internally contradictory, yet evaluation usually emphasizes answer accuracy under helpful context rather than reliability under conflict. Using HealthContradict, we evaluate six open-weight LLMs under five controlled evidence conditions: no retrieved context, correct-only context, incorrect-only context, and two mixed conditions containing both correct and contradictory documents in opposite orders. In this conflicting-evidence order contrast, where the same two documents are both present and only their order is reversed, accuracy drops for every model and 11.4%--25.2% of predictions flip. To support abstention in these difficult cases, we also evaluate a conflict-aware abstention score that combines model confidence with a detector of evidence conflict. In the two hardest conditions, this score improves selective accuracy over confidence-only, with mean gains of 7.2--33.4 points in incorrect-only (IC') and 3.6--14.4 points in incorrect-first conflicting (ICC') conditions across 75%, 50%, and 25% coverage. These results show that conflicting biomedical evidence is both an uncertainty and robustness problem and motivate evaluation and abstention methods that explicitly account for evidence disagreement.

Biomedical question answering with large language models is commonly evaluated using answer accuracy, but answer accuracy alone does not indicate whether a model can produce parseable outputs, follow structured reliability instructions, recognize weak answer spaces, or avoid confident incorrect commitments. This paper presents HypothesisMed, an inference-time reliability pipeline for biomedical multiple-choice question answering. It combines direct, chain-of-thought, HypothesisMed-v3 prompting, and answer fusion. The final answer is selected by fusion, while HypothesisMed-v3 supplies SPACE labels and confidence information. SPACE labels mark the answer space as VALID, INCOMPLETE, or CONTRADICTED. We evaluate Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4-mini, DeepSeek-R1-32B, and BioMistral-7B on MedQA, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA using 1,000 examples per dataset. The pipeline improves weighted accuracy over each model's best direct or chain-of-thought baseline while increasing parse and SPACE coverage. We also scale evaluation to Qwen2.5-7B and Phi-4-mini using 10,183 examples per model. Fusion improves Phi-4-mini accuracy from 0.4296 to 0.5192, while Qwen2.5-7B chain-of-thought remains slightly higher in answer accuracy. However, Qwen2.5-7B fusion achieves complete parse and SPACE coverage with much lower false commitment. A 12,000-example SPACE stress test shows answer-space diagnosis remains difficult, with SPACE accuracy of 0.3074 for Qwen2.5-7B and 0.4168 for Phi-4-mini. These results show that answer accuracy, parseability, structured reliability reporting, calibration behavior, and false-commitment behavior are separable capabilities. The main contribution is not a universal state-of-the-art claim, but a reproducible inference-time framework for evaluating biomedical question answering models as auditable workflow components under structured reliability constraints.

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.