cs.CLMay 31, 2026

HypothesisMed: Inference-Time Answer Fusion and Structured Hypothesis-Space Reporting for Biomedical Question Answering

Authors: Md Motaleb Hossen Manik, Ge Wang

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 12, 2026cs.CL

MedHopQA: A Disease-Centered Multi-Hop Reasoning Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for LLM-Based Biomedical Question Answering

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the biomedical domain requires benchmarks that can distinguish reasoning from pattern matching and remain discriminative as model capabilities improve. Existing biomedical question answering (QA) benchmarks are limited in this respect. Multiple-choice formats can allow models to succeed through answer elimination rather than inference, while widely circulated exam-style datasets are increasingly vulnerable to performance saturation and training data contamination. Multi-hop reasoning, defined as the ability to integrate information across multiple sources to derive an answer, is central to clinically meaningful tasks such as diagnostic support, literature-based discovery, and hypothesis generation, yet remains underrepresented in current biomedical QA benchmarks. MedHopQA is a disease-centered multi-hop reasoning benchmark consisting of 1,000 expert-curated question-answer pairs introduced as a shared task at BioCreative IX. Each question requires synthesis of information across two distinct Wikipedia articles, and answers are provided in an open-ended free-text format. Gold annotations are augmented with ontology-grounded synonym sets from MONDO, NCBI Gene, and NCBI Taxonomy to support both lexical and concept-level evaluation. MedHopQA was constructed through a structured process combining human annotation, triage, iterative verification, and LLM-as-a-judge validation. To reduce leaderboard gaming and contamination risk, the 1,000 scored questions are embedded within a publicly downloadable set of 10,000 questions, with answers withheld, on a CodaBench leaderboard. MedHopQA provides both a benchmark and a reusable framework for constructing future biomedical QA datasets that prioritize compositional reasoning, saturation resistance, and contamination resistance as core design constraints.
Rezarta Islamaj, Robert Leaman, Joey Chan +13
BiomedicalMedical Question AnsweringMulti-Hop Question Answering BenchmarksMultiple-Choice QuestionsReasoning Benchmark
AskPDF
May 17, 2026cs.CL

BELIEF: Structured Evidence Modeling and Uncertainty-Aware Fusion for 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.
Chang Zong, Hao Ning, Siliang Tang +2
BiomedicalBeliefNatural Language InferenceUncertainty-Aware Fusion
AskPDF
Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

Which Medical Questions Deserve Rationales? Perturbation-Sensitive Selection for Robust QA

Medical question-answering datasets often contain answer labels, whereas high-quality rationales remain scarce, noisy, or costly to validate. This changes the acquisition question: rather than asking which questions should be labeled, we ask which already-labeled questions should receive rationale supervision under a fixed token budget. We study an offline version of this problem in which candidate rationales are visible to the selector but withheld from downstream training unless selected. We propose root-mean-square Robustness-based Sample Prioritization (RMS-RSP), which perturbs hidden states only at rationale tokens and measures the resulting shift in the gold-versus-best-distractor margin. Across five medical QA datasets, MedGemma-4B-IT, three training seeds, ten budgeted non-RSP selectors, and an unbudgeted full-supervision reference, RMS-RSP provides a deliberately qualified result. Its locked-budget accuracy is 60.61% on average versus 60.08% for Random, with a statistically resolved gain only on AfriMed-QA (+1.44 points). Its full-budget accuracy area is not better than Random. However, after three answer-option reorderings, RMS-RSP improves robust accuracy and semantic consistency by 1.91 and 2.85 points on average, respectively, with the same direction on all five datasets. Training on every pool rationale raises macro accuracy to 63.74%, but consumes 29--254 times more rationale tokens and does not uniformly improve robustness. These findings do not establish universal accuracy gains; they instead suggest that rationale-local boundary sensitivity can identify supervision that improves invariance to semantically equivalent formatting changes.
Yuexin Wu, Dayou Yu, Vasile Rus
RationalesMulti-Hop Question Answering BenchmarksReal-World Clinical DatasetDiagnostic BenchmarkDistractor
AskPDF