Evidence-Grounded Generation

Financial AI systems must produce answers grounded in specific regulatory filings, yet current LLMs fabricate metrics, invent citations, and miscalculate derived quantities. These errors carry direct regulatory consequences as the EU AI Act's high-risk enforcement deadline approaches (August 2026). Existing hallucination detectors treat all claims uniformly, missing 43% of computational errors that require arithmetic re-verification against structured tables. We present FinGround, a three-stage verify-then-ground pipeline for financial document QA. Stage 1 performs finance-aware hybrid retrieval over text and tables. Stage 2 decomposes answers into atomic claims classified by a six-type financial taxonomy and verified with type-routed strategies including formula reconstruction. Stage 3 rewrites unsupported claims with paragraph- and table-cell-level citations. To cleanly isolate verification value from retrieval quality, we propose retrieval-equalized evaluation as standard methodology for RAG verification research: when all systems receive identical retrieval, FinGround still reduces hallucination rates by 68% over the strongest baseline ($p < 0.01$). The full pipeline achieves a 78% reduction relative to GPT-4o. An 8B distilled detector retains 91.4% F1 at 18x lower per-claim latency, enabling $0.003/query deployment, supported by qualitative signals from a four-week analyst pilot.

Recent advances in deep research systems enable large language models to retrieve, synthesize, and reason over large-scale external knowledge. In medicine, developing clinical guidelines critically depends on such deep evidence integration. However, existing benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability in realistic workflows requiring multi-step evidence integration and expert-level judgment. To address this gap, we introduce MedProbeBench, the first benchmark leveraging high-quality clinical guidelines as expert-level references. Medical guidelines, with their rigorous standards in neutrality and verifiability, represent the pinnacle of medical expertise and pose substantial challenges for deep research agents. For evaluation, we propose MedProbe-Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework featuring: (1) Holistic Rubrics with 1,200+ task-adaptive rubric criteria for comprehensive quality assessment, and (2) Fine-grained Evidence Verification for rigorous validation of evidence precision, grounded in 5,130+ atomic claims. Evaluation of 17 LLMs and deep research agents reveals critical gaps in evidence integration and guideline generation, underscoring the substantial distance between current capabilities and expert-level clinical guideline development. Project: https://github.com/uni-medical/MedProbeBench

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.

General-purpose LLMs pose misinformation risks for development and policy experts, lacking epistemic humility for verifiable outputs. We present AVA (AI + Verified Analysis), a GenAI platform built on a curated library of over 4,000 World Bank Reports with multilingual capabilities. AVA's multi-agent pipeline enables users to query and receive evidence-based syntheses. It operationalizes epistemic humility through two mechanisms: citation verifiability (tracing claims to sources) and reasoned abstention (declining unsupported queries with justification and redirection). We conducted an in-the-wild evaluation with over 2,200 individuals from heterogeneous organisations and roles in 116 countries, via log analysis, surveys, and 20 interviews. Difference-in-Differences estimates associate sustained engagement with 2.4-3.9 hours saved weekly. Qualitatively, participants used AVA as a specialized "evidence engine"; reasoned abstention clarified scope boundaries, and trust was calibrated through institutional provenance and page-anchored citations. We contribute design guidelines for specialized AI and articulate a vision for "ecosystem-aware" Humble AI.

Frontier large language models generate clinically accurate outputs, but their citations are often fabricated. We term this the Provenance Gap. We tested five frontier LLMs across 36 clinician-validated scenarios for three rare neuromuscular disease pairs. No model produced a clinically relevant PubMed identifier without prompting. When explicitly asked to cite, the best model achieved 15.3% relevant PMIDs; the majority resolved to real publications in unrelated fields. We present HEG-TKG (Hierarchical Evidence-Grounded Temporal Knowledge Graphs), a system that grounds clinical claims in temporal knowledge graphs built from 4,512 PubMed records and curated sources with quality-tier stratification and 1,280 disease-trajectory milestones. In a controlled three-arm comparison using the same synthesis model, HEG-TKG matches baseline clinical feature coverage while achieving 100% evidence verifiability with 203 inline citations. Guideline-RAG, given overlapping source documents as raw text, produces zero verifiable citations. LLM judges cannot distinguish fabricated from verified citations without PubMed audit data. Independent clinician evaluation confirms the verifiability advantage (Cohen's d = 1.81, p < 0.001) with no degradation on safety or completeness. A counterfactual experiment shows 80% resistance to injected clinical errors with 100% detectability via citation trace. The system deploys on-premise via open-source models so patient data never leaves institutional infrastructure.

Trustworthiness and transparency are essential for the clinical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and biomedical research. Recent deep research systems aim to accelerate evidence-grounded scientific discovery by integrating AI agents with multi-hop information retrieval, reasoning, and synthesis. However, most existing systems lack explicit and inspectable criteria for evidence appraisal, creating a risk of compounding errors and making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to assess the reliability of their outputs. In parallel, current benchmarking approaches rarely evaluate performance on complex, real-world medical questions. Here, we introduce DeepER-Med, a Deep Evidence-based Research framework for Medicine with an agentic AI system. DeepER-Med frames deep medical research as an explicit and inspectable workflow of evidence-based generation, consisting of three modules: research planning, agentic collaboration, and evidence synthesis. To support realistic evaluation, we also present DeepER-MedQA, an evidence-grounded dataset comprising 100 expert-level research questions derived from authentic medical research scenarios and curated by a multidisciplinary panel of 11 biomedical experts. Expert manual evaluation demonstrates that DeepER-Med consistently outperforms widely used production-grade platforms across multiple criteria, including the generation of novel scientific insights. We further demonstrate the practical utility of DeepER-Med through eight real-world clinical cases. Human clinician assessment indicates that DeepER-Med's conclusions align with clinical recommendations in seven cases, highlighting its potential for medical research and decision support.

Citation granularity -- whether to cite individual sentences, paragraphs, or documents -- is a critical design choice in attributed generation. While fine-grained citations are commonly preferred for precise human verification, their impact on model performance remains under-explored. We analyze four model scales (8B-120B) and demonstrate that enforcing fine-grained (sentence-level) citations forfeits gains of 2-97% (median 40%) relative to the best-performing granularity, and up to 338% on individual tasks. Strikingly, setting citation granularity to its optimal value (based on attribution quality) unlocks these substantial gains while leaving overall answer correctness essentially unchanged (between -2.3% and +4.4%). We observe a consistent pattern where attribution quality peaks at intermediate (paragraph-level) granularities: finer citations appear to sever the semantic dependencies needed to ground a claim, while excessively coarse citations introduce distracting noise. Importantly, this performance gap varies with scale: when a claim rests on a small or moderate amount of evidence, it disproportionately penalizes larger models by disrupting the multi-sentence information synthesis at which they excel. Fine-grained citation rests on the premise that a sentence is a sufficient unit of evidence on its own. Our results indicate that it often is not, and that this is a property of the model rather than of the citation standard. Standards fixed for human verifiability may therefore paradoxically degrade the very attribution they aim to ensure; effective attribution requires matching granularity to the model's semantic scope rather than fixing it by convention.

Evidence-grounded generation produces summaries whose claims should be supported by supplied evidence, but claim-level verifiers provide noisy feedback and can reward models that simply say less. We study this problem in clinical Brief Hospital Course summarization, where outputs must remain grounded in patient-specific EHR evidence. We introduce VERI-DPO, a preference-mining framework that converts noisy claim verification into coverage-controlled summary-level preferences. For each evidence-window prompt, VERI-DPO samples multiple candidate summaries, decomposes them into claims, verifies each claim against patient evidence, and forms a preference pair only when the chosen summary has better aggregate verifier-estimated support while retaining comparable verifiable content. Standard Direct Preference Optimization then distills these pairs into a single-sample policy, avoiding inference-time reranking. On patient-disjoint MIMIC-III-Ext-VeriFact-BHC test data, VERI-DPO reduces Not Supported rates from 10.7% to 1.9% under the mining verifier and from 11.6% to 6.4% under a separately prompted GPT-4o judge. In 100 blinded pairwise assessments by two domain researchers, VERI-DPO is preferred over the base model 56 times versus 18 times for factual faithfulness. In a locked zero-shot MIMIC-IV-Ext-BHC transfer test with 1,000 patients and no model adaptation, VERI-DPO lowers Not Supported rates with nearly unchanged scored-claim counts. Multi-seed ablations show that verifier-guided pair construction drives the gains, while coverage and anti-degeneration controls prevent apparent factuality improvements from coming from shorter or less checkable outputs.

Trustworthy clinical summarization requires every claim to be traceable to its evidence, yet existing attribution often resolves only to the sentence or document, leaving clinicians to scan surrounding text for the few words that matter. We argue that the unit of attribution should match the unit of verification: the precise phrase the reader's eye must land on. We present MAPLE (Medical Aspect-Based Summarization with Phrase-Level Evidence), a human-annotated benchmark that grounds each summarized claim in both cited sentences and contributory phrases within them. Spanning 152 randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts and 16 clinically motivated aspects, MAPLE comprises 1,799 aspect-based summaries with two-level evidence. We further introduce a decoupled evaluation framework that separately scores content, traceability, and locatability, together with a proxy for the amount of source text a clinician must inspect to verify a claim. Benchmarking eleven LLMs shows that sentence-level citation is consistently strong (C-F1 up to 90.9%), while phrase-level grounding remains less stable and the most discriminative axis across models (P-F1 66.1-84.5%). These results suggest that the key challenge is not only producing accurate summaries, but localizing their supporting evidence precisely enough for efficient clinical verification. Data and code are available at https://github.com/chubohao/maple.