Evidence Conflict

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

7 papers in the last four weeks, up 133% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 6Week of Sep 21

Latest papers 39

Oct 1, 2026cs.LG

When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs?

Biological reasoning models use post-training to connect LLMs to biological foundation model representations and biological text. Their benchmark accuracy is taken as evidence that LLMs reason over these inputs. We test this assumption in six biological reasoning models across DNA, protein, and single-cell tasks. We perturb one biological input while holding the query and other inputs fixed, construct evidence conflicts that pair the foundation model representation of one genome, protein, or cell with the text of another, fit linear probes to the representations the language model receives, and analyze reasoning traces against the biological inputs. Evo2 and ESM3 contribute little to BioReason and BioReason-Pro performance on the evaluated tasks. Shuffling the DNA sequence barely changes BioReason disease prediction accuracy, and in evidence conflicts the two models follow the text in 97.9% and 99.7% of cases. Linear probes trained on the Evo2 and ESM3 representations predict the task targets, so these foundation models encode information relevant to the task, but provide limited overall performance improvement to BioReason and BioReason-Pro. In contrast, foundation model inputs contribute to ChatNT, Prot2Text-V2, and CellWhisperer performance, and differentially expressed genes in the gene sentence contribute to Cell2Sentence-Scale performance. Across SFT and RL checkpoints of BioReason-Pro and 42 BioReason checkpoints, increases in accuracy do not imply greater performance contributions from biological inputs. BioReason traces misstate nucleotide changes, while BioReason-Pro traces describe functions omitted from final predictions under evidence conflicts. We find that current post-training strategies do not ensure that foundation model representations contribute to task performance.

Ada Fang, Nikitha Thoduguli, Lukas Fesser +3

Harvard University · Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Evidence Conflict Foundation Model Intermediate Checkpoints

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Value the Right Evidence? Evidence-Value Misalignment in Dynamic Medical Diagnosis

A correct diagnosis reached from insufficient or misleading evidence can pose a clinical hazard, yet outcome-based accuracy may reward such lucky guesses. We call this mismatch between diagnostic decisions and the value of available evidence Evidence-Value Misalignment (EVM). To disentangle evidential grounding independently from diagnostic accuracy, we introduce MedEVM, a dynamic benchmarking environment comprising 1,050 cases across 24 disease systems. Observations arrive turn by turn, requiring models to continuously calibrate its decision by deciding whether to wait for more evidence or submit a diagnosis. Across 9 LLMs, four interesting patterns are observed. (1) Miscalibrated evidence tracking. Making a diagnosis often fails to calibrate evidence sufficiency, even in more capable models, and even worsens in reasoning mode. (2) Misaligned diagnosis submission. Confidence in the correct diagnosis often fails to ensure timely submission despite sufficient evidence. (3) Evidence order matters. Reordering the same evidence changes diagnoses even when model confidence remains similar. (4) Misleading evidence remains influential. Added misleading evidence redirects diagnoses even after prior evidence becomes sufficient. We further verify that EVM predicts errors and that preventing premature submission improves accuracy. These findings motivate Evidence-Verified Diagnosis Harness (EVD-Harness). It decouples diagnosis generation from submission through an offline Contrastive Diagnostic Wiki and three online control stages, namely observation management, proposal and witness verification, and diagnosis submission control. Across five LLMs, EVD-Harness improves accuracy by 12.0--51.1 percentage points while mitigating EVM-related failures. Our results demonstrate that verifying evidential support before submission can make diagnostic decisions more reliable.

Kehua Feng, Yunsheng Lu, Yitong Qiao +5

Zhejiang University · Ant Healthcare, Ant Group

Diagnosis Evidence Conflict

Sep 27, 2026cs.RO

ReSync: Re-Aligning the Two Clocks of Asynchronous World-Action Models

Jointly generating future video and actions has become a standard recipe for world-action models, and the strongest systems denoise the two streams on separate schedules: actions are decoded in few steps so control stays fast, while the video stream runs longer to keep the predicted future sharp. The design is deliberate, but it leaves the two streams on different clocks, and an action can become executable while the future that should justify it is still largely unresolved. We formalize this as a two-clock view of asynchronous inference and introduce the commitment-evidence gap, a quantity read directly from a model's own sampling schedule rather than measured by search. The gap is predictive: as it widens, candidate utility becomes harder to identify and extra candidate sampling buys less, while advancing the world stream buys more, and the two cross. Spending more world computation is therefore not simply better. The useful interval is closed at both ends, and both ends can be read off the schedule before any rollout. ReSync places the computation inside it: hold the action state, advance only the world within the supported window, then resume native denoising. No parameters change and no candidates are compared. On a frozen paired RoboCasa panel this improves success by 4.48 points, while an equal-compute control that waits without advancing the world does not move, and the same rule transfers to a second benchmark and a second backbone without retuning.

Xi Lin, Feihong Zhang, Yulong Shi +6

Johns Hopkins University · Tsinghua University · Yinwang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. +1

Recent World-Action Models World Models Asynchronous Execution Clocks Fast Inference Evidence Conflict

Sep 22, 2026cs.CL

ARAFA: An LLM-Generated Arabic Fact-Checking Dataset

Automatic fact-checking poses a significant challenge in Arabic natural language processing due to the scarcity of datasets and resources. In this manuscript, we introduce Arafa, a new large-scale dataset for fact-checking in Modern Standard Arabic, constructed through an automated framework leveraging large language models (LLMs). The dataset was constructed through a three-step pipeline: (1) claim generation from Arabic Wikipedia pages with supporting textual evidence, (2) claim mutation to generate challenging counterfactual claims with refuting evidence, and (3) an automatic validation step to validate that the generated claims are either supported or refuted by their accompanying evidence, or if the evidence does not provide enough information to judge the validity of the claims. The resulting dataset comprises 181,976 claim-evidence pairs labeled as supported, refuted, or not enough information. Human evaluation carried out on a test sample from the dataset demonstrated strong inter-annotator agreement (kappa = 0.89) using Cohen's Kappa for supported claims and (kappa = 0.94) for refuted claims. Automatic validation based on a human-evaluated sample achieved 86% accuracy for supported claims and 88% for refuted ones. To showcase Arafa's value as a resource for automatic Arabic fact-checking, four open-source transformer-based models were fine-tuned using Arafa, with the top-performing model achieving a Macro F1-score of 77% on the test data. In addition to Arafa being the first large-scale dataset for Arabic fact-checking, our framework presents a scalable approach for developing similar resources for other low-resource languages.

Christophe Khalil, Shady Elbassuoni, Rida Assaf

Computer Science, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

Arabic Arabic Natural Language Processing Real-World Dataset Evidence Conflict

Sep 21, 2026cs.IR

GroundedGEO: Auditing the Evidence Gap in Generative Search Rankings

Generative search systems rank products and services for consequential decisions, and publishers can cheaply make candidate text look relevant. Yet evidence status is not a text property but a claim-evidence relation: text-only rankers and defenses cannot separate honest detailed content from fabricated detail, creating an identifiability gap. We audit this gap with an evidence-paired benchmark (50 e-commerce queries, 1,950 cases) and a claim-level reranker, GroundedGEO, that penalizes query-relevant claims lacking support in a supplied packet. Matched rich variants control format and volume; packet twins add attestations at fixed text, while thinned packets withdraw them. On the frozen listwise ranker Qwen2.5-7B, unsupported-rich variants show significant normalized rank gain over clean candidates (+0.065 to +0.092 across claim profiles, Holm-corrected), while supported and neutral controls do not; the effect is model-dependent (marginal on MiMo-v2.5, absent on GLM-5.3-Flash). On a frozen pointwise scorer, oracle evidence labels cut the unsupported-rich top-3 rate from 0.65 to 0.43 (laundering from 0.61 to 0.39) at lambda=40 with zero false suppression; packet twins restore the original rates without changing text. Against a 370-claim human gold, all tested automatic judges fail the preregistered reliability gate, although the best local judge retains 79-100% of oracle suppression with zero measured false suppression on protected arms. Separately, stripping attestation coverage increases false suppression by 0.307. These diagnostic effects identify two limits on the evidence channel: label quality and packet coverage. They do not validate an automatic defense, and interpretation of the adverse human-gold arm remains pending adjudication.

Yihan Xia, Huiling Fan, Kangrong Zhong +1

Shenzhen University Shenzhen, China

Evidence-Grounded Questions Evidence Conflict Human-Annotated Benchmark False-Negative Rate Oracles Identifiability

Sep 21, 2026cs.CV

Look Where It Counts: A Free, Label-Free Visual Evidence Signal for Fine-Grained Vision-Language Reasoning

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) fail at fine-grained visual questions less because they cannot reason than because they never see the evidence: high-resolution images are downsampled before encoding, so the model answers from linguistic priors. The standard remedies are expensive: annotated answers (SFT), hand-engineered verifiers (RLVR), or a large external teacher (on-policy distillation). We ask whether the visual evidence itself can supply the signal for free. We formalize the contrastive evidence gap, the per-token log-likelihood ratio that a model assigns to its own output when conditioned on a question-relevant region versus an irrelevant one, and study it across Qwen2.5-VL-7B, Qwen3-VL-8B, and Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B on V*Bench. Our main positive result is training-free: selecting the candidate crop under which the model's answer distribution is most peaked, using a single-view, label-free criterion, discovers the answer-bearing region with no bounding boxes, training, or labels. It localizes the target 4.4 to 5.1 times better than chance and raises fine-grained accuracy from 70 percent to 85 percent at inference. We further show that the gap is complementary to the model's own confidence. Combining them predicts correctness better than either alone, with AUC up to 0.99, and flags confidently wrong answers, with AUC ranging from 0.97 to 1.00 within the high-confidence subset. All effects concentrate on perception-bottleneck questions and vanish on a global-context control. Finally, we report an honest negative result: converting the same signal into a training method, gated self-distillation (SEG-Distill), does not outperform the base model at pilot scale across three gate designs, while more aggressive gating degrades accuracy. The signal is real, but converting it into training gains remains an open problem.

Santi Ram Tiwari, Nihal Naik, Devbrat Pandey +1

KGraph AI Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, India – 560016

Fine-Grained Perception Recent Vision-Language Models Visual Evidence Multimodal Large Language Models Label-Free Evidence Conflict

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

When Evidence Conflicts: Reliability-aware Meta-review Generation

Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approaches typically formulate meta-review generation as a multi-document summarization task and aggregate reviewer feedback uniformly, making it difficult to determine which opinions should be prioritized under disagreement. In this paper, we study meta-review generation through reliability-aware evidence aggregation. Our framework first extracts aspect-level opinions from peer reviews and identifies conflicting evidence within each aspect. It then estimates opinion-level support and review-level quality to measure evidence reliability. Based on these signals, the framework assigns reliability-aware weights to reviewer feedback, enabling the generator to prioritize better-supported arguments while preserving diverse perspectives. Experiments demonstrate that our method consistently improves meta-review generation over strong baselines on both automatic and human evaluations, with clear gains in conflict recognition and resolution under high-conflict review scenarios. The code and implementation details are publicly available at https://github.com/Wangxz729/reliability-aware-meta-review.

Xinzhe Wang, Fei Tao, Jiang Xie +2

Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China · NewsBreak, USA

Review Evidence Conflict

Sep 16, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Accuracy: How Procedural Traces Shift the Decision Criterion of LLM Overseers

Organizations increasingly use oversight loops where one large language model (LLM) audits another's outputs alongside procedural traces of claimed steps. A common concern about such LLM-as-a-judge pipelines is that detailed traces make overseers gullible. Using signal detection theory, we audit five LLM overseers on 19 compliance tasks (4,551 analyzed judgments), varying only trace detail and evidence labeling. With disconfirming evidence always visible, error detection remains near ceiling. Instead, elaborate traces shift the decision criterion toward rejection, increasing false alarms in susceptible overseers. Without option labels, human-validated reason coding shows about 60% of false alarms cite an inability to tie evidence to its option. Labels eliminate this stated reason, yet residual rejection of correct work persists in those overseers and rises with trace detail. Procedural traces thus act as governance artifacts that shape oversight decisions. AI auditors should be evaluated by their decision criterion and false-alarm behavior, alongside accuracy.

Zihan Chen, Di Zhu, Lei Zheng +1

Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ, USA · University of Massachusetts Boston Boston, MA, USA · Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY, USA

Model Auditing Large Language Models Fail Traces Evidence Conflict

Sep 12, 2026cs.AI

Can LLMs Follow Medical Expert Logic? A Benchmark for Hierarchical Logical Consistency in Risk-of-Bias Assessment

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 +2

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Hypertension Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University

Clinical Reasoning Training Large Language Model Reliability Evidence Conflict

Aug 11, 2026stat.ME

Every pooling rule has its world: matching probability combination rules to situations and stakes

Systems often need to combine two numerical assessments of the same yes/no question. The appropriate formula depends on what the numbers represent and on how the sources are related. Averaging is correct when one of several alternative interpretations applies; multiplying odds is correct when probability reports are based on conditionally independent evidence and a common prior; and probabilities of alternative successful derivations require their dependence or shared evidence to be taken into account. We state the assumptions behind several common combination rules and derive the corresponding combined probabilities. Two groups of Monte Carlo experiments address different questions. First, controlled generating mechanisms verify that the derived rule recovers the correct probability in the situations for which its assumptions hold. Second, the same mechanisms measure the consequences of using a mismatched rule, using logarithmic score and threshold decisions with different costs. Distinct pooling rules can produce the same binary decision at threshold 1/2 while assigning substantially different probabilities, so binary accuracy alone can conceal important differences. We also give probabilistic interpretations of conflicting-evidence rules and show that, for overlapping derivations, retaining the identities of shared uncertain premises permits direct calculation of the probability that at least one derivation is available. Pairwise combination of proof probabilities loses information when there are three or more derivations.

Tanel Tammet, Priit Järv, Dirk Draheim

Tallinn University of Technology

Probability Probabilistic Model Evidence Conflict Combinations Decision Thresholds Situation Calculus+1

Aug 8, 2026cs.CR

EvoTrustRAG: Evolution-Aware Conflict Attribution and Evidence Handling for Reliable Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves the factuality of large language models with external knowledge, yet conflicting evidence remains a fundamental challenge in dynamic and adversarial environments. Existing approaches often treat conflicts as static inconsistencies and select more reliable knowledge, overlooking that the same conflict may arise from legitimate knowledge evolution, malicious manipulation, or unresolved uncertainty. We formulate conflict origin attribution as a new problem in RAG: identifying which explanation of conflicting evidence is supported by observable context rather than simply which fact should be trusted. We propose EvoTrustRAG, a training-free framework for evolution-aware conflict attribution and evidence handling before answer generation. EvoTrustRAG represents span-grounded retrieved facts as a conflict evidence graph, evaluates grounded evolution and directional intervention hypotheses using temporal relations, support structure, and auxiliary consistency, and projects local decisions onto a globally consistent explanation of each conflict group. The attribution determines whether earlier and later states are preserved as temporal knowledge, an intervention candidate is separated from the primary context, or an unresolved conflict remains visible to the generator. Unlike provenance-based approaches focused on post-hoc analysis, EvoTrustRAG determines during inference whether conflicting evidence follows plausible knowledge evolution, exhibits intervention-like support, or cannot be reliably attributed. Experiments show that EvoTrustRAG achieves 81.4% average accuracy on benchmark-native conflict settings, improves attribution macro-F1 from 72.2% to 79.1% over the strongest baseline, and reduces the error rate under the strongest coordinated attack from 31.2% to 16.0%.

Xi Nie, Hongwei Li, Shenghao Wu +3

School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Evidence Conflict

Aug 7, 2026q-bio.QM

Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications

Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.

Kaela Kokkas, Hairong Wang, Richard Klein +11

Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · School of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · Wits Machine Intelligence and Neural Discovery (MIND) Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa +13

Systematic Review Biomedical Text Evidence Conflict Bacterial Colony Counting Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards Multiple-Choice Questions+1

Jul 29, 2026cs.DL

Evidence-Based Scientific Question Discovery: A Framework with Historical Backtesting

Current AI systems are optimized for answering questions; the scientific enterprise is bottlenecked earlier, at discovering the questions worth investigating. We present a framework that turns a traceable, reproducible, scope controlled research corpus into ranked, falsifiable research questions: evidence is represented as provenance carrying claims; cross paper tensions are detected, typed, and human adjudicated; surviving signals are refined into questions and ranked by a two stage protocol separating scientific priority from execution priority. We instantiate the framework on exoplanet atmospheres, a domain that uniquely combines literature, structured catalogs, and space telescope archives. In a historical backtest, all questions generated from evidence available before 2021 were substantively engaged by the 2021 to 2026 literature the sys?tem never saw: two were answered, including one whose premise the community later explicitly refuted and the top ranked question is independently posed and still open. These results sug?gest that systematic question discovery from evidence tensions surfaces the questions working scientists subsequently invest in.

Hui Mao

Independent Researcher

Scientific Discovery Evidence-Grounded Questions Research Automation Exoplanet Atmospheres Discovery Evidence Conflict+2

Jul 29, 2026cs.CL

Same Evidence, Different Target: Decoding How Diagnostic Evidence Bears on Causal Questions from Language-Model States

The same diagnostic result can support or challenge one causal claim yet fail to address another when the claims concern different populations, outcomes, estimands, pathways, or identifying assumptions. When the evidence and target vary together, a correct answer may reflect favorable or adverse wording, lexical overlap, or a familiar diagnostic pattern rather than matching the evidence to the causal question. We introduce paired prompts that repeat the same diagnostic evidence verbatim while changing the causal target. Each prompt is labeled Favors, Challenges, Unresolved, or Wrong Target according to how the evidence bears on the causal question. A pair is recovered only when both prompts are classified correctly. Using linear readouts trained on a separate development set, we analyze the final-token hidden state from the penultimate transformer block of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Qwen3-8B, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. On the 49-pair primary benchmark spanning nine diagnostic families, balanced accuracy ranges from 0.654 to 0.659 and 18-21 pairs are recovered. Two independent human reviewers assigned the same label to 95 of the 98 prompts (96.9%). Across checkpoints, balanced accuracy and complete-pair recovery exceed permutation nulls that preserve development scenario groups. In Qwen2.5, full-prompt balanced accuracy exceeds both restricted inputs, with paired-bootstrap intervals for both differences above zero. Readouts trained without development examples from the evaluated diagnostic family recover 21 pairs, including at least one in each of the nine families. The hidden-state readout exceeds a linear classifier on answer-option logits and text baselines in balanced accuracy and recovered pairs. These results show that the hidden state contains linearly decodable information about whether diagnostic evidence favors, challenges, or fails to address the causal target.

Weiyi Kong, Zhuoran Li

University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada · The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Diagnosis Evidence Conflict Hidden States Confidence Intervals

Jul 29, 2026cs.CL

Diagnosing Fine-Grained Inconsistency Classification in Financial Disclosure Text

Financial disclosures may contain numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and policy inconsistencies that require different evidence and reasoning to diagnose. We study \emph{fine-grained inconsistency classification}: given a passage known to contain a conflict, the goal is to identify its type among 11 categories. Using a fixed snapshot of the synthetic SBID-FD benchmark, we compare frozen and fine-tuned encoders, evidence-augmented classifiers, prompted large language models, and LoRA-adapted generative models under a shared evaluation protocol. Task-specific adaptation yields large improvements over frozen representations, and a fine-tuned 300M encoder performs competitively with substantially larger prompted and adapted models. We further study whether localizing the conflicting claims improves classification through matched predicted-span, reference-span, and distractor-span conditions. The results show that automatically extracted evidence provides additional signal but recovers only part of the benefit obtained from reference spans. Per-class and confusion analyses further reveal that some inconsistency types are especially sensitive to localization quality, whereas others remain difficult even when the relevant evidence is supplied. These findings identify evidence localization and fine-grained type discrimination as distinct challenges and show that compact supervised encoders are strong baselines for this task.

Aman Kumar, Lasitha Vidyaratne, Dipanjan D Ghosh +2

Hitachi America, Ltd.

Large Language Model Classification Evidence Conflict Generation Provenance Explanation Consistency Score Text Analysis and Detection Distractor

Jul 23, 2026cs.AI

Auditing Evidence Use in Medical LLM Diagnosis

Medical LLMs are often evaluated by whether they select the correct diagnosis, but diagnostic accuracy alone does not show whether the model used the case evidence appropriately. We present a behavioral audit of evidence use in medical diagnosis. For each case, we decompose patient information into evidence units, score candidate diagnoses under controlled evidence subsets, and mine low-order interactions in diagnostic margins. Because medical evidence is diagnosis-relative, the audit separates interaction discovery from failure assignment: large or negative interactions can reflect plausible differential diagnosis, while suspicious interactions require robustness checks and clinical review. We evaluate five open-weight LLMs on DDXPlus, CupCase, and MedCase. Across datasets, faithful support and differential conflict or cancellation account for most interaction strength, showing that many evidence interactions are clinically plausible rather than failures. In a DDXPlus-focused blinded five-reviewer 130-item enriched review sample, invalid or shortcut-like cases concentrate in negated or absent findings and clinically local evidence. These results show that accuracy can hide candidate evidence-use failures and motivate role-aware audits for medical LLM evaluation.

Junchi Liao, Jiawen Deng, Fuji Ren

University of Electronic Science and Technology of China Chengdu, China

Diagnosis Evidence Conflict Model Auditing Large Language Model Evaluation

Jul 12, 2026cs.CR

Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows

LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows. Much of the public literature still evaluates them as models, with less attention to their behavior as components in operational pipelines. This creates a practical evidence question: what would justify placing an LLM inside a live workflow with latency, cost, escalation, human-review, and adversarial-risk constraints? We address this question through a fraud-first survey of deployment evidence. We code 49 operationally relevant sources on LLM use in fraud detection, investigation support, content moderation, and cross-cutting robustness (18 fraud, 14 moderation, 17 cross-cutting), supplemented by 15 contextual references that establish the survey boundaries. These sources include systems, benchmarks, frameworks, and deployment-relevant surveys, not 49 production deployments. The main finding is an evidence imbalance. Fraud supplies the largest task-specific portion of the coded corpus. The moderation papers, however, include more explicit public evidence on latency, cost, governance, and fairness. Among the 18 fraud and investigation sources, none report clean per-decision latency, per-decision dollar cost, or calibration evidence; most report offline task performance, retrieval gains, or case-study accuracy instead. The survey contributes a role-and-evidence organizing frame, FORTE, for locating LLMs as classifiers, retrieval interfaces, explanation generators, reviewer assistants, agents, feature extractors, or escalation components. It also contributes a minimum deployment-evidence checklist covering latency budget, cost per decision, decision threshold, explanation integrity, and adversarial pressure. The resulting agenda identifies studies needed to support deployment claims for LLM-based fraud and trust-and-safety work.

Keyur Gabani

Fraud Detection Large Language Model Reliability Agentic Workflow Design Survey Evidence Conflict

Jun 27, 2026cs.CL

The strength of clinical evidence is recoverable from language model representations but not from their stated grades

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly summarize clinical evidence, where a claim's weight depends on how strongly it is supported. Yet these models convey confidence poorly, and properties they never state, such as truth, are often readable from their activations. Whether a clinical model registers evidence strength, distinct from truth, and states it when asked is untested, and any such signal could be lexical. We compiled 45,134 clinical claims from six public sources, harmonized 20,611 into a four-level evidence grade under three independent frameworks, and tested 22 local, open-weight LLMs from several developers (0.6-70 billion parameters; general, medical, and reasoning), with lexical, truth, and cross-framework controls. A linear estimator recovered the grade in every model (median AUROC 71.8), yet decodability did not rise with scale and was weakest in reasoning models. The grade the models stated fell to chance, 25-27 percentage points below the estimator. The recoverable signal was largely lexical and did not transfer across topics or frameworks, yet it was distinct from factual truth and still flagged weakly supported claims (AUROC 69.2). Clinical LLMs thus carry an ordered evidence-strength signal they do not express, so their stated grades fail to convey a claim's support even when it is recoverable from their representations and text.

Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh

Lab for AI in Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen · Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA +1

Large Language Model Reliability Evidence Conflict Grading

Jun 24, 2026cs.CL

ConflictScore: Identifying and Measuring How Language Models Handle Conflicting Evidence

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

Siyi Liu, Aaron Halfaker, Dan Roth +1

University of Pennsylvania · Microsoft

Evidence Conflict Truth Overconfidence

Jun 23, 2026cs.AI

T2D-Bench: Evidence-Gated Evaluation of LLM Outputs for Type 2 Diabetes Using a Multi-Layer Clinical-Lifestyle Knowledge Graph

Large language models (LLMs) can produce clinically fluent recommendations for type 2 diabetes while failing to satisfy guideline constraints or explicitly justify lifestyle-related glycemic claims. We present T2D-Bench, a reproducible benchmark and evidence-gated evaluation framework for testing whether LLM outputs satisfy explicit, graph-checkable evidence requirements. T2D-Bench is built on a multi-layer clinical-lifestyle knowledge graph that combines a biomedical spine (UMLS, DrugBank, SIDER), computable ADA Standards of Care rules, and lifestyle knowledge connected through a mechanistic bridge to glycemic laboratory effects. Across 100 structured vignettes spanning diagnosis, medication safety, and adversarial lifestyle conflicts, baseline outputs failed benchmark-defined evidence-path checks in 35% of cases for GPT-4o-mini and 33% for GPT-4o. The evidence gate detects unsupported omissions and uses constrained revision to bring outputs into verifier-level compliance with benchmark-defined evidence requirements. These results show that computable evidence constraints can make unsupported clinical omissions explicit, measurable, and correctable in diabetes-focused LLM outputs.

Saba A. Farahani, Hung Cao, Ramesh Jain +1

University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

Diabetes Biomedical Knowledge Graph Evidence Conflict

Jun 22, 2026physics.data-an

Where Is My Physics Wrong? Localized and Identifiable Discovery of Model Discrepancy

Hybrid models combine trusted physics with data-driven correction, but a physical model is rarely wrong everywhere or in the same way. The key diagnostic question is local: where does the model fail, what missing mechanism explains the failure, and is the evidence statistically real? Existing sparse-discovery and discrepancy-learning methods usually fit one global correction, which can spread a local error into clean regimes, bias trusted physical parameters, and provide no calibrated significance for selected terms. We introduce LISDD, Localized, Identifiable Sparse Discovery of Discrepancy, a framework that localizes model error to an operating regime, identifies a sparse symbolic form for the missing mechanism, and certifies the discovery with an exact finite-sample test. LISDD fits the known physics on an automatically detected clean regime, flags discrepant regions with a calibrated residual-energy statistic, selects the local missing term by exhaustive holdout over a candidate library, and confirms significance with a sample-split

F

-test. A false-discovery-rate extension handles multiple discrepant regions with different missing mechanisms. In controlled experiments, LISDD keeps physical-parameter bias at 0.002 versus 0.43 for global-discrepancy and black-box baselines, raises localization

F_1

from 0.44 to 0.80, recovers the correct symbolic form with probability one, attains exact detection, and controls the multi-region false-discovery rate while recovering every planted mechanism. The result is a calibrated diagnostic tool for grey-box building-energy models when a fixed physical law silently breaks in one operating regime.

Yifan Wang

Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, QC, H3A 2T7, Canada

Discrepancy Model Discovery False Discovery Rate Evidence Conflict AI Trustworthiness

Jun 14, 2026cs.LG

Visualizing Uncertainty: Spatial Maps of Missing and Conflicting Evidence in Deep Learning

Understanding when and why deep neural networks are uncertain is crucial for deploying reliable machine learning systems in safety-critical domains. While existing uncertainty quantification methods provide scalar measures of model confidence, they offer limited insight into which spatial regions of an input contribute to different types of uncertainty. We propose a novel visualization framework, Uncertainty Activation Map (UAM), that combines Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) with Full-Gradient Class Activation Mapping (FullGrad) to generate interpretable spatial uncertainty activation maps. Our approach distinguishes between two fundamental types of uncertainty: vacuity, representing lack of evidence, and dissonance, capturing conflicting evidence between competing hypotheses. By leveraging the complete gradient decomposition property of FullGrad and the principled uncertainty quantification of Subjective Logic, our method produces theoretically grounded visualizations that highlight specific image regions responsible for model uncertainty. With this framework, vacuity and dissonance activation maps are generated by computing belief-weighted attributions, enabling identification of where models lack knowledge versus where they encounter ambiguous evidence. Extensive evaluations across multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework effectively addresses the critical gap between uncertainty quantification and explainability, providing intuitive visual feedback to assess model reliability in complex visual recognition tasks.

Dong Hyun Jeong, Feng Chen, Jin-Hee Cho +3

University of the District of Columbia Department of Computer Science Washington, DC, USA · University of Texas at Dallas Department of Computer Science Richardson, TX, USA · Virginia Tech Department of Computer Science Blacksburg, VA, USA +3

Class Activation Mapping Pixel-Level Prediction Perception Gap Deep Learning Evidence Conflict

Jun 14, 2026cs.LG

Multi-Agent Framework for Audit Risk Assessment with Explicit Uncertainty and Evidence Conflict Modeling

Audit risk assessment increasingly benefits from combining heterogeneous evidence sources, yet existing approaches typically produce point predictions without quantifying how well different evidence streams agree. We propose UMAR (Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Agent Risk Assessment), a framework that employs three specialized agents: an MD&A Text Agent, a Financial Ratio Agent, and a CAM Agent, each producing independent risk scores with calibrated uncertainty estimates. An Uncertainty Aggregator based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory fuses these scores while explicitly measuring inter-agent conflict. We evaluate UMAR on a U.S. dataset of 3,200 firm-year observations from SEC 10-K filings (2019-2023), with financial restatement as the target label. Experimental results show that UMAR achieves an AUROC of 0.782 and a PR-AUC of 0.341, outperforming logistic regression, XGBoost, FinBERT, and single-agent and dual-agent LLM baselines. UMAR attains the lowest expected calibration error (ECE = 0.052) among all methods and identifies evidence-conflict patterns that correlate with actual restatement risk, offering auditors potentially actionable and interpretable risk signals.

Yuhan Wang, Manqing Wang, Yixuan Lu +2

Columbia University New York, USA · Trine University Phoenix, USA · University of Sofia Palo Alto, USA +2

Model Auditing Evidence Conflict Artificial Intelligence Risk Uncertainty Financial Question Answering

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

X-MADAM-RAG: Diagnosing and Handling Chinese-English Evidence Conflict in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems may receive evidence that is not merely noisy but mutually contradictory. This issue becomes particularly salient in multilingual settings, where retrieved Chinese and English evidence may support incompatible answer candidates. We study this problem through X-RAMDocs-ZHEN, a controlled Chinese-English benchmark derived from RAMDocs for diagnosing evidence conflict in RAG. The benchmark contains 300 examples across six balanced conditions, including monolingual support, bilingual agreement, reversed conflict directions, and conflict with optional noise. We further examine X-MADAM-RAG, an interpretable pipeline that decomposes evidence handling into per-document candidate extraction, visible-evidence repair, deterministic candidate grouping, and conflict-aware aggregation. On the original controlled benchmark with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, X-MADAM-RAG achieves 0.9667 strict accuracy and 0.9767 conflict-aware success, outperforming an evidence-normalized single-call baseline. However, a zero-call rule-only extractor reaches 1.0000 on the same benchmark, revealing strong template regularity. To probe this limitation, we construct a deterministic naturalized stress test that removes explicit answer templates while preserving candidate strings. On its 100-sample subset, rule-only extraction falls to 0.0000, but X-MADAM-RAG also drops to 0.3000 strict accuracy, below both naive and evidence-normalized baselines. A privileged oracle remains perfect, indicating that document-level extraction is the main bottleneck. These findings position X-RAMDocs-ZHEN and X-MADAM-RAG as diagnostic tools for controlled evidence conflict rather than as evidence of general hallucination detection or robustness to natural retrieval.

Yongqi Kang, Yu Fu, Yong Zhao

Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Hievi-Rag Evidence Conflict Question-Answering Benchmarks

Jun 8, 2026cs.CL

AbstRAG: Learning to Abstract for Retrieval Problems

Retrieval-augmented generation often fails when the query, the document evidence, and the user's intent are expressed at different levels of abstraction. A query may ask about a class, a relation, or an event, while the document only states specific instances, indirect framings, or scoped formulations. We define this mismatch as an abstraction gap: the minimal set of typed assumptions required to align query intent with the available evidence. To close this gap, we introduce AbstRAG, which treats abstraction as an explicit retrieval object. AbstRAG decomposes the query--evidence gap into expression, conceptual, intent--evidence, and event-type components, and scores relevance by combining match quality, a query-independent utility prior, and the cost of the required bridges. Its central mechanism is reflective refinement: a critic diagnoses retrieval failures, localizes the failed abstraction operator, proposes a minimal stage-specific patch, and accepts the patch only under sufficiency and compression controls. Across three within-document retrieval benchmarks against seven baselines, AbstRAG outperforms on nDCG@10 in 18 of 21 paired-bootstrap contrasts and improves generation accuracy by 1.9%, 5.2%, and 4.0% across the three benchmarks; ablations confirm that reflective refinement drives most of the retrieval gain and the compression control alone reduces over-expansion false positives from 73.7% to 0% on a stress slice.

Lei Xu, Xin Quan, Daniel Pedronette +1

Idiap Research Institute, Switzerland · São Paulo State University, Brazil · Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, United Kingdom +1

Question-Answering Benchmarks Evidence Conflict Logical Connectives

Jun 5, 2026cs.SE

Cherry-pick Override: Unsafe Directional Commitment in LLM Judges under Mixed Evidence

LLM judges increasingly turn verdicts into system commitments. Under mixed evidence (claims with both supporting and refuting sources) this is unsafe: when the schema exposes CONFLICTING as the authorized non-directional verdict, returning SUPPORTS/REFUTES is an unauthorized directional commitment, a failure we name Cherry-pick Override (CCO). We define CCO under an explicit task contract and report it with a same-denominator diagnostic protocol paired with matched-coverage bootstrap and an apples-to-apples random-veto null. On AVeriTeC's Conflicting subset (N_C = 150), three-option judges return a directional verdict on more than 84% of mixed-evidence claims; under the typed schema, three-judge majority voting amplifies direction-on-conflict on AVeriTeC (0.887 vs. 0.840; 95% CI [+0.013, +0.080]) but does not replicate on VitaminC-Mixed. Walking an intervention ladder of common single-channel fixes (typed vocabulary, panel aggregation, confidence thresholding, validator-only filtering), each leaves a distinct residual failure: panel aggregation suppresses single-judge CONFLICTING dissent in 48% of CCO cases; the panel is well-calibrated for direction (ECE = 0.07 on pure-S/R) so confidence cannot operationally separate CCO from correct directional commits; validator-as-classifier nearly halves pure-evidence accuracy. A minimal two-channel reference probe reaches operating points neither single channel reaches; under the random-veto null its promotion to CONFLICTING is structurally targeted on AVeriTeC (empirical p < 1/2001) and weaker but in the same direction on VitaminC-Mixed, a selectivity result rather than a magnitude one. We argue for an external commitment-control layer that separates verdict generation from commitment authorization, using structural evidence and confidence as orthogonal channels and NO-COMMIT as a routed controller state.

Haoran Xu

University of Glasgow

Verdict Evidence Conflict Judges Large Language Model Judges Commitment

Jun 5, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating RAG Reliability under Clean, Misleading, and Mixed Retrieval

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely used to improve the factual reliability of large language models (LLMs) by grounding answers in retrieved evidence. In misinformation-rich environments, however, retrieved content may include plausible but incorrect information, raising concerns about the reliability of RAG-based information access systems. In this work, we propose an evaluation protocol to systematically test how the RAG system handles conflicts between parametric knowledge and evidence retrieved from context with varying amounts of misleading information. We target correct answers to factoid questions that the model responds to correctly, even when there is no retrieval, and use this to test the system with clean, poisoned, and mixed evidence. The proposed analytical framework combines parametric override and confidence metrics to assess when and how misleading information affects the generation process of LLMs. This study aims to provide insights into the robustness of RAG systems in information disorder scenarios.

Sevgi Yigit-Sert

Computer Engineering Department, Ankara University, Golbasi Campus, 06830, Ankara, Turkey · Golbasi Campus, 06830, Ankara, Turkey

Misinformation Evidence Conflict Clear

Jun 3, 2026cs.AI

Output Type Before Quality: A Standards-Derived XAI Admissibility Rubric for Autonomous-Driving Safety

Safety standards for ML-based autonomous driving specify the kind of evidence an assurance case must contain (directed cause-and-effect chains, quantified interventional effects, named root-cause variables), yet the XAI literature is organised by output type and technique family (saliency maps, feature attribution, counterfactuals, causal graphs, language traces). SHAP, the most-recommended ADS XAI method, returns a ranked feature list that no implementation effort can convert into a directed chain (Fig.1). We name this mismatch the evidence-type gap. From AMLAS, ISO 26262, ISO21448, ISO/PAS 8800 we derive 19 testable evidentiary criteria across 7 lifecycle stages with representative clause-cited derivations and score six XAI method classes structurally. Causal XAI emerges as structurally required to satisfy the derived criteria at three stages: hazard identification (+62% rubric gap), incident investigation (+50%), and data management (+50%); the verdict set is stable across thresholds T in (0%, 50%]$ and survives a worst-case single-cell flip down to T = 25%. At the remaining four stages, correlational or language-based methods are comparable or sufficient. The rubric identifies structural admissibility (necessary but not sufficient for compliance): an admissible method's specific output content may still be wrong, and validating that fidelity (the edges a fitted SCM produces, the cause a trace names) is the open assurance challenge. A single-VLA proof of concept on 1,996 real-world driving clips (79,840 rows, ten splits) is consistent with each method's observed output type matching its rubric prediction. XAI method selection for ADS safety assurance should be driven by lifecycle-stage evidence demand, not by method popularity.

Abhinaw Priyadershi, Mandar Pitale, Jelena Frtunikj +1

NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA · NVIDIA GmbH, Munich, Germany

Xai Autonomous Driving Evidence Conflict Lifecycle

Jun 1, 2026cs.CL

Encoded but Not Routed: Explaining the Table-Chart Gap in Scientific Claim Verification

Multimodal LLMs are increasingly used to assist scientific peer review, where a core requirement is verifying whether claims in a paper are supported by its evidence. Prior work has shown that models perform substantially better at this task when the evidence is a table than when it is a chart of the same underlying data. This raises the question of whether models fail to extract information from charts, or do they extract it but fail to use it when forming their prediction? We study this question through layer-wise linear probing and attention analysis on three open-weight VLMs over table and chart evidence, representing the same underlying data. We find consistent evidence for the latter. Chart information is encoded in the models' intermediate representations but does not reach the prediction position, a gap that is absent for tables and holds across all conditions tested. Attention analysis further reveals that this disconnect takes two architecturally distinct forms across model families. These findings reframe the table-chart gap as a failure of how encoded visual information is routed at prediction time, rather than a failure of encoding itself.

Sunisth Kumar, Xanh Ho, Tim Schopf +3

The University of Tokyo · NII LLMC · National Institute of Informatics +2

Evidence Conflict Chart Peer Review Visual Evidence Scientific Discovery Reasoning Graphs+2

May 29, 2026cs.CY

Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence

We argue that many Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research (AMR) studies need stronger evidence to ensure that they can provide a robust foundation for critical safety decisions, such as model deployment and regulation. By evaluating failure modes across different misalignment concepts, such as deception, emergent misalignment, and sycophancy, we show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors. This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR. To achieve this, we provide a clear call to action through a proposed framework of evidence levels and a diagnostic checklist. These shared standards will enable more productive scientific discourse and ensure that claims about AI risks rest on solid empirical foundations.

Vansh Gupta, Peter Nutter, Samuel Stante +5

1ETH Zurich

Anthropomorphism Evidence Conflict Artificial Intelligence Risk Ambiguity Position

May 23, 2026cs.CL

StepGap: A Hybrid NLI-LLM Checker for Step-Level Evidence-Gap Detectionin Multi-Hop Question Answering

We present \textbf{StepGap}, a hybrid NLI-LLM decision tree that detects step-level evidence gaps in multi-hop QA and emits one of three typed labels: \textsc{Contradicted Claim} (CC), \textsc{Irrelevant Evidence} (IE), or \textsc{Missing Bridge} (MB), each tied to a concrete repair action. On 82 multi-hop questions (181 annotated steps,

κ{=}0.704

), StepGap reaches sF1

=

72.0, within the bootstrap confidence interval of an LLM-only baseline (70.1) but with a more decomposable structure: every StepGap stage \emph{hurts} F1 when removed, while three of four LLM-only removals \emph{improve} F1 -- a sign of \emph{competing-error cancellation}, where internal stages mask each other's errors. We further expose a \emph{Q-F1 trap}: question-level F1 is mechanically inflated by checkers that flag every step, making step-level F1 the necessary diagnostic. Used as a typed GRPO process reward, StepGap improves Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Exact Match from

32.1{\pm}0.3

to

35.4{\pm}0.9

across three seeds, with the single-run comparison showing a

+5.6

Avg EM gain over the matched Search-R1 GRPO reproduction.

Yuelyu Ji, Zhuochun Li, Hui Ji +1

School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh

Multi-Hop Reasoning Evidence Conflict Question Multimodal Query Llm-As-A-Judge

May 18, 2026cs.CV

CounterCount: A Diagnostic Framework for Counting Bias in Vision Language Models

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at multimodal reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether their answers are grounded in visual evidence or driven by learned language and world priors. Counting provides a precise testbed: when visual evidence conflicts with canonical object knowledge, a model must rely on the image rather than a prototypical count. We introduce CounterCount, a diagnostic framework for counterfactual counting in VLMs, consisting of paired factual and counterfactual images with edited count-relevant attributes, verified answers, and localized evidence annotations. Evaluating recent VLMs, we find strong performance on factual images but consistent degradation under counterfactual attribute changes, indicating reliance on object-level priors even when contradictory visual evidence is present. Using localized annotations, we show that these failures are not solely due to missing or ambiguous visual evidence, but to models underweighting attention to count-relevant visual tokens. We introduce a unified inference-time attention modulation strategy that reweights selected visual tokens, improving counterfactual counting accuracy by up to 8% across multiple VLMs. Overall, CounterCount exposes prior-driven counting failures and provides diagnostic insights for designing future VLMs.

Reem Alzahrani, Hassan Alshanqiti, Bushra Bin Hemid +3

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. · University of Edinburgh · KAUST

Counting Multimodal Reasoning Diagnostic Framework Evidence Conflict

May 17, 2026cs.LG

Position: State-of-the-Art Claims Require State-of-the-Art Evidence

State-of-the-Art (SOTA) claims pervade Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research. These claims rest on benchmark evaluations, where models are ranked by aggregate scores across tasks. Public benchmarks or leaderboards are the most visible instance, but the same structure appears in paper tables throughout the literature. However, such minimal evidence often cannot support these strong claims. We identify a widespread claim-evidence gap in AI benchmarking. Claiming SOTA carries implicit assumptions beyond mean score superiority, suggesting that a model meaningfully outperforms alternatives across most tasks. However, a marginal improvement in the mean score merely indicates a top average rank rather than true superiority. Analyzing ten cross-domain benchmarks from public leaderboards, we found that in more than half of top-model comparisons, at least one commonly assumed property of superiority does not hold. These properties include meaningful effect size, consistency across tasks, or robustness to dataset removal. Instead, aggregate gains are frequently driven by outlier datasets. This fragility persists even in benchmarks with many tasks. We argue that claim language should reflect the strength of the underlying evidence. This requires no additional experiments, only honest reporting of what results actually show, enabling more precise and interpretable comparisons across models.

YongKyung Oh

Medical & Imaging Informatics (MII), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Artificial Intelligence Benchmarks Evidence Conflict Position

May 13, 2026cs.CL

When Evidence Conflicts: Uncertainty and Order Effects in Retrieval-Augmented 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.

Yikun Han, Mengfei Lan, Halil Kilicoglu

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Evidence Conflict Biomedical Text Large Language Model Reliability Contradiction Uncertainty Order Matters

May 12, 2026cs.CV

VideoSEAL: Mitigating Evidence Misalignment in Agentic Long Video Understanding by Decoupling Answer Authority

Long video question answering requires locating sparse, time-scattered visual evidence within highly redundant content. Although current MLLMs perform well on short videos, long videos introduce long-horizon search and verification, which often necessitates multi-turn, agentic interaction. We show that existing LVU agents can exhibit "evidence misalignment": they produce correct answers that are not supported by the retrieved or inspected evidence. To characterize this failure, we introduce two diagnostics (temporal groundedness and semantic groundedness) and use them to reveal two pressures that amplify misalignment: prompt pressure from shared-context saturation at inference time and reward pressure from outcome-only optimization during training. These findings point to a structural root cause: the coupled agent paradigm conflates long-horizon planning with answer authority. We therefore propose the decoupled planner-inspector framework, which separates planning from answer authority and gates final answering on pixel-level verification. Across four long-video benchmarks, our framework improves both answer accuracy and evidence alignment, achieving 55.1% on LVBench and 62.0% on LongVideoBench while producing interpretable search trajectories. Moreover, the decoupled architecture scales consistently with increased search budgets and supports plug-and-play upgrades of the MLLM backbone without retraining the planner. Code and models are available at https://github.com/Echochef/VideoSEAL.

Chenhao Qiu, Yechao Zhang, Xin Luo +2

Mango TV · Mango TV, Changsha, China · Nanyang Technological University +1

Long Video Question Answering Temporal Grounding Evidence Conflict Answer Decoupling

Apr 20, 2026cs.CL

ArbGraph: Conflict-Aware Evidence Arbitration for Reliable Long-Form Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) remains unreliable in long-form settings, where retrieved evidence is noisy or contradictory, making it difficult for RAG pipelines to maintain factual consistency. Existing approaches focus on retrieval expansion or verification during generation, leaving conflict resolution entangled with generation. To address this limitation, we propose ArbGraph, a framework for pre-generation evidence arbitration in long-form RAG that explicitly resolves factual conflicts. ArbGraph decomposes retrieved documents into atomic claims and organizes them into a conflict-aware evidence graph with explicit support and contradiction relations. On top of this graph, we introduce an intensity-driven iterative arbitration mechanism that propagates credibility signals through evidence interactions, enabling the system to suppress unreliable and inconsistent claims before final generation. In this way, ArbGraph separates evidence validation from text generation and provides a coherent evidence foundation for downstream long-form generation. We evaluate ArbGraph on two widely used long-form RAG benchmarks, LongFact and RAGChecker, using multiple large language model backbones. Experimental results show that ArbGraph consistently improves factual recall and information density while reducing hallucinations and sensitivity to retrieval noise. Additional analyses show that these gains are evident under conflicting or ambiguous evidence, highlighting the effectiveness of evidence-level conflict resolution for improving the reliability of long-form RAG. The implementation is publicly available at https://github.com/1212Judy/ArbGraph.

Qingying Niu, Yuhao Wang, Ruiyang Ren +2

Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China, 100872 · Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 15213

Evidence Conflict Arbitration Factual Recall Graph Representations

Apr 1, 2026cs.CL

CARE: Privacy-Compliant Agentic Reasoning with Evidence Discordance

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly used to support high-stakes decision-making, but they typically perform worse when the available evidence is internally inconsistent. Such a scenario exists in real-world healthcare settings, with patient-reported symptoms contradicting medical signs. To study this problem, we introduce MIMIC-DOS, a dataset for short-horizon organ dysfunction worsening prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. We derive this dataset from the widely recognized MIMIC-IV, a publicly available electronic health record dataset, and construct it exclusively from cases in which discordance between signs and symptoms exists. This setting poses a substantial challenge for existing LLM-based approaches, with single-pass LLMs and agentic pipelines often struggling to reconcile such conflicting signals. To address this problem, we propose CARE: a multi-stage privacy-compliant agentic reasoning framework in which a proprietary LLM provides guidance by generating structured categories and transitions without accessing sensitive patient data, while a local LLM uses these categories and transitions to support evidence acquisition and final decision-making. Empirically, under controlled retrospective evaluation on MIMIC-DOS, CARE achieves the best overall performance across key metrics among the evaluated LLMs and agentic workflows, showing that it can more robustly handle conflicting clinical evidence while preserving privacy.

Haochen Liu, Weien Li, Rui Song +6

University of Cambridge · McGill University · MBZUAI - Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence +2

Evidence Conflict Mimic

Aug 2, 2025cs.AI

Disentangling Reasoning Logic to Resolve Explicit Knowledge Conflicts

Explicit knowledge conflicts, occurring when retrieved contexts contain contradictory information, pose a fundamental challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) as they integrate increasingly diverse data sources. The core difficulty lies in the complexity of entangled narratives and heterogeneous conflict patterns, which frequently exceeds the reasoning capacity of standard backbone architectures. We propose \textbf{\textsc{Kcr}} (Knowledge Conflict Reasoning), a framework that adjudicates contradictions by systematically structuring their underlying logic. \textsc{Kcr} disentangles conflicting contexts into discrete sets of reasoning traces, utilizing a hybrid representation of text and graphs to facilitate systematic comprehension. It then employs a Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) paradigm to instill a reasoning policy that maximizes logical consistency while suppressing spurious paths derived from contradictory evidence. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that \textsc{Kcr} yields substantial performance gains. Notably, a 7B model enhanced by \textsc{Kcr} achieves adjudication capabilities that significantly outperform leading proprietary models, including GPT-4o and GPT-5.1, on complex tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/zhengxianda/KCR.

Xianda Zheng, Zijian Huang, Meng-Fen Chiang +4

School of Computer Science, University of Auckland · Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore Management University +1

LLM Reasoning Strategies Reasoning Skills Evidence Conflict Logic Narratives

Aug 23, 2024cs.AI

DrugAgent: Reliable Multi-Agent Integration of Conflicting Biomedical Evidence for Drug-Target Interaction Assessment

Workflows in drug-target interaction (DTI) assessment require integrating heterogeneous data from predictive models, curated resources, and observations from experimental literature. This evidence can be incomplete or conflicting. DrugAgent is a large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent system focused on DTI evidence integration that integrates outputs from machine learning, knowledge graph, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) agents. DrugAgent converts agent outputs into interpretable representations, then summarizes conflict across the evidence. We evaluated DrugAgent on kinase screening data of 900 pairs spanning 178 kinases and 42 inhibitors, and an androgen receptor antagonist screening benchmark. On the kinase dataset, LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation indicated outputs were faithful to input evidence in 98.8% of cases. Biological plausibility of returned summarization was high (scores 3-4 out of 5) across ground-truth classes: 79% of Weak activity labels cases (81% for Moderate/77% Strong); Strong cases received higher scores than Weak/Moderate. Label stability showed 98% agreement across runs. Results on the antagonist benchmark were consistent with the kinase dataset. Retrieved literature provided the greatest benefit when direct drug-target evidence was available, highlighting the importance of evidence availability for RAG-based integration. DrugAgent provides heterogeneous evidence-grounded DTI assessment, complementing standalone DTI prediction. We provide strategies to model agreement, conflict, and uncertainty in biomedical evidence integration. Code: https://github.com/sciluna/DrugAgent.

Yoshitaka Inoue, Tianci Song, Xinling Wang +3

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA · Computational Biology Branch, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA · Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, Arlington, VA, USA +2

Drug-Drug Interactions Drug Discovery Biomedical Knowledge Graph Evidence Conflict Systematic Review Adversarial Robustness