Evidence-Grounded Reasoning

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.

Large language models (LLMs) now solve a wide range of expert-level exams at or above human level, yet remain brittle on specialised, evidence-intensive domains such as law. On these tasks, errors arise not only from gaps in world knowledge but also from subtle distinctions between pieces of evidence and inconsistent use of supporting evidence. The most common aggregator over sampled chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, majority vote, returns the most popular answer regardless of whether its evidence is actually strongest. We propose to treat the selection of CoT reasoning fragments into a set of evidence as an explicit combinatorial optimisation problem, allowing well-supported but minority hypotheses to override noisy majorities, and to evaluate the approach on legal-reasoning benchmarks that are particularly sensitive to evidence quality. We introduce EP-HUBO (Evidence Pool Higher-Order Binary Optimisation), which generates multiple CoT traces with a small local model, parses fragments into per-hypothesis evidence pools, solves a higher-order unconstrained binary optimisation per pool with quality-derived weights (relevance, specificity, distinctiveness), and delegates a single adjudication call per question to a frontier model. We evaluate EP-HUBO on two evidence-intensive legal benchmarks using both simulated annealing on classical hardware and the Dirac-3 photonic entropy-quantum machine from Quantum Computing Inc. HUBO-style optimisation gives a principled way to aggregate reasoning fragments while preserving minority-but-correct hypotheses, and is most valuable in low-contamination domains where frontier models have not already absorbed the benchmark material.

Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable. LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures (especially truncated traces), produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test. We introduce PROBE (Protocol Reasoning Over evidence-Based Ensembles), a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures. It integrates (i) deterministic PCAP-to-text normalization with frame-level verifiability, (ii) multi-run, multi-candidate ensembles with optional cross-model second opinion and progressive obfuscation, (iii) a verdict-aware evidence framework treating absence of failure evidence as contributing evidence, and (iv) a fully deterministic composite reliability score from evidence validity, run-to-run stability, and cross-model agreement without LLM self-assessment. On 87 enterprise Wi-Fi captures (104 capture-reviewer pairs), single-pass LLM analysis raises weighted evidence F1 from 0.871 (expert baseline) to 0.912 but misses critical frames in 35% of cases. Naive ensemble voting drops below baseline (0.842) as majority voting amplifies conservative verdicts: 50% of confirmed failures are misclassified as 'no issue' or 'insufficient evidence.' Adding evidence-grounded reconciliation achieves 0.957 F1, a 96% auto-accept rate, and a worst-case floor above 0.70. LLM self-reported confidence clusters at 0.95 regardless of difficulty (71% report exactly 0.95), confirming it is uninformative. We also introduce a model-agnostic evaluation framework using per-field assertion matching, eliminating circular bias from model-co-produced golden references.

Biomedical discovery often requires connecting broad biomedical knowledge with specific experimental or clinical data. Background knowledge suggests relevant mechanisms but is usually too general to map directly onto dataset variables, while data-driven patterns can be dataset-specific and hard to interpret mechanistically. We study this missing link as knowledge contextualization: transforming broad biomedical knowledge into evidence-supported, scenario-grounded propositions that domain experts can inspect, replay, and validate. We propose SCENE, a bi-level multi-agent framework that treats knowledge contextualization as iterative search. The upper level converts broad knowledge into search directions and grounds them in the dataset schema. The lower level executes these directions through multi-objective optimization to identify concrete propositions that balance evidential strength and data support. Feedback between the two levels progressively refines the search. We evaluate SCENE in two settings: discovering patient subgroups with heterogeneous treatment benefits in clinical trial scenarios, and identifying context-specific biological responses in LINCS L1000 studies. In clinical trials, SCENE discovers specific, well-supported subgroups and outperforms existing baselines. In L1000 studies, SCENE identifies perturbational contexts with strong target-response matching and high positive rates. These results show that SCENE bridges broad knowledge and scenario-specific evidence, producing traceable, inspectable hypotheses for follow-up validation.

Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and agent workflows have shown strong promise for computational pathology, yet reliable patch-level reasoning remains challenging. End-to-end pathology MLLMs often hallucinate morphological features, while recent agentic systems usually merge tool outputs and retrieved knowledge into a shared context, making decisions vulnerable to conflicting evidence and context contamination. We propose PathoSage, a three-stage framework that explicitly separates knowledge retrieval, evidence collection, and evidence adjudication for patch-level pathology multimodal reasoning. Its core component, Structured Evidence Deliberation, independently evaluates heterogeneous evidence from tools, performs conflict analysis, and generates the final judgment in a fresh context to reduce anchoring bias. We further introduce a training-free Beta-Bernoulli experience system with continuous credit assignment to model long-term tool reliability and construct similarity-weighted priors for future tool use. Experiments show that PathoSage effectively mitigates VQA hallucinations and classifier disagreement, outperforming strong pathology MLLM and agentic baselines. Our results highlight explicit evidence adjudication and reliability-aware tool modeling as key ingredients for robust pathology agents.

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.

LLM-based agents are increasingly used to simulate deliberative interactions such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and multi-turn opinion exchange. Yet generated transcripts often do not reveal why an agent's stance changes: movement may reflect evidence uptake, anchoring, role drift, echoing, or changed prompt and retrieval context. We introduce the Belief Engine (BE), an auditable belief-update layer that treats "belief" as an evidential state over a proposition and exposes it as scalar stance. BE extracts arguments into structured memory and updates stance with a log-odds rule controlled by evidence uptake u and prior anchoring a. Across multiple base LLMs, parameter sweeps show that these controls reliably shape stance dynamics while preserving an evidence-level update trail. On DEBATE, a human deliberation dataset with pre/post opinions, BE best reconstructs participants whose final stance follows extracted evidence; stable and evidence-opposed cases instead point to anchoring or factors outside the extracted evidence stream. BE provides configurable infrastructure for studying evidence-grounded deliberation, where openness, commitment, convergence, and disagreement can be tied to explicit update assumptions rather than hidden prompt effects.

Cell-type-specific marker genes are fundamental to plant biology, yet existing resources primarily rely on curated databases or high-throughput studies without explicitly modeling the supporting evidence found in scientific literature. We introduce PlantMarkerBench, a multi-species benchmark for evaluating literature-grounded plant marker evidence interpretation from full-text biological papers. PlantMarkerBench is constructed using a modular curation pipeline integrating large-scale literature retrieval, hybrid search, species-aware biological grounding, structured evidence extraction, and targeted human review. The benchmark spans four plant species -- Arabidopsis, maize, rice, and tomato -- and contains 5,550 sentence-level evidence instances annotated for marker-evidence validity, evidence type, and support strength. We define two benchmark tasks: determining whether a candidate sentence provides valid marker evidence for a gene-cell-type pair, and classifying the evidence into expression, localization, function, indirect, or negative categories. We benchmark diverse open-weight and closed-source language models across species and prompting strategies. Although frontier models achieve relatively strong performance on direct expression evidence, performance drops substantially on functional, indirect, and weak-support evidence, with evidence-type confusion emerging as a dominant failure mode. Open-weight models additionally exhibit elevated false-positive rates under ambiguous biological contexts. PlantMarkerBench provides a challenging and reproducible evaluation framework for literature-grounded biological evidence attribution and supports future research on trustworthy scientific information extraction and AI-assisted plant biology.

Enterprise agents increasingly operate inside scoped retrieval systems, delegated workflows, and policy-constrained evidence environments. In these settings, access control can be enforced correctly while the system still produces an answer that appears complete even though material evidence lies outside the caller's authorization boundary. This paper introduces Partial Evidence Bench, a deterministic benchmark for measuring that failure mode. The benchmark ships three scenario families -- due diligence, compliance audit, and security incident response -- with 72 tasks total, ACL-partitioned corpora, oracle complete answers, oracle authorized-view answers, oracle completeness judgments, and structured gap-report oracles. It evaluates systems along four surfaces: answer correctness, completeness awareness, gap-report quality, and unsafe completeness behavior. Checked-in baselines show that silent filtering is catastrophically unsafe across all shipped families, while explicit fail-and-report behavior eliminates unsafe completeness without collapsing the task into trivial abstention. Preliminary real-model runs show model-dependent and scenario-sensitive differences in whether systems overclaim completeness, conservatively underclaim, or report incompleteness in an enterprise-usable form. The benchmark's broader contribution is to make a governance-critical agent failure measurable without human judges or contamination-prone static corpora.

When copies of the same language model are prompted to debate, they produce diverse phrasings of one perspective rather than diverse perspectives. Multi-agent debate (MAD), and more broadly closed-system reasoning where agents iteratively transform each other's outputs, tends to preserve answer accuracy while degrading the reasoning behind those answers. We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap, offering a programmatic theory of evidence-grounded reasoning failure.The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence (decomposer-invariant rankings: Spearman rho=1.0); (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry; (iii) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): under standard MAD, the chain E -> O^0 -> O^1 -> ... is Markov, and the Data Processing Inequality implies E[I(E;O^{t+1})] <= E[I(E;O^t)]. Three companion results -- open-system recovery (Theorem 2), EGSR accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote-aggregation floor (Proposition 1) -- partition multi-step LLM reasoning by its information-theoretic relationship to E. Across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims), DebateCV (C13) preserves 88% of baseline accuracy while SFS drops 43%; majority-vote MAD (C15) reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p < 10^{-6}, d = -0.96); EGSR recovers 98%. An R6 cohort study (Korean n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact) finds inter-rater Fleiss kappa <= +0.018 with 0.8-1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts across language and domain -- the human agreement that faithfulness metrics have been calibrated against is not itself stable. We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.

Document understanding is a critical capability in financial credit review, onboarding, and remote verification, where both decision accuracy and evidence traceability matter. Compared with static document images, document videos present a temporally redundant and sequentially unfolding evidence stream, require evidence integration across frames, and preserve acquisition-process cues relevant to authenticity-sensitive and anti-fraud review. We introduce FCMBench-Video, a benchmark for document-video intelligence that evaluates document perception, temporal grounding, and evidence-grounded reasoning under realistic capture conditions. For privacy-compliant yet realistic data at scale, we organize construction as an atomic-acquisition and composition workflow that records reusable single-document clips, applies controlled degradations, and assembles long-form multi-document videos with prescribed temporal spans. FCMBench-Video is built from 495 atomic videos composed into 1,200 long-form videos paired with 11,322 expert-annotated question--answer instances, covering 28 document types over 20s--60s duration tiers and 5,960 Chinese / 5,362 English instances. Evaluations on nine recent Video-MLLMs show that FCMBench-Video provides meaningful separation across systems and capabilities: counting is the most duration-sensitive task, Cross-Document Validation and Evidence-Grounded Selection probe higher-level evidence integration, and Visual Prompt Injection provides a complementary robustness dimension. The overall score distribution is broad and approximately bell-shaped, indicating a benchmark that is neither saturated nor dominated by trivial cases. Together, these results position FCMBench-Video as a reproducible benchmark for tracking Video-MLLM progress on document-video understanding and probing capability boundaries in authenticity-sensitive credit-domain applications.

Lithology classification in well logs is a fundamental geoscience data mining task that aims to infer rock types from multi dimensional geophysical sequences. Despite recent progress, existing approaches typically formulate the problem as a static, single-step discriminative mapping. This static paradigm limits evidence-based diagnostic reasoning against geological standards, often yielding predictions that are detached from geological reality due to a lack of domain priors. In this work, we propose GeoMind, a tool-augmented agentic framework that models lithology classification as a sequential reasoning process. GeoMind organizes its toolkit into perception, reasoning, and analysis modules, which respectively translate raw logs into semantic trends, infer lithology hypotheses from multi-source evidence, and verify predictions against stratigraphic constraints. A global planner adaptively coordinates these modules based on input characteristics, enabling geologically plausible and evidence-grounded decisions. To guarantee the logical consistency of GeoMind, we introduce a fine-grained process supervision strategy. Unlike standard methods that focus solely on final outcomes, our approach optimizes intermediate reasoning steps, ensuring the validity of decision trajectories and alignment to geological constraints. Experiments on four benchmark well-log datasets demonstrate that GeoMind consistently outperforms strong baselines in classification performance while providing transparent and traceable decision-making processes.

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed worldwide, inspiring a surge of benchmarks that measure their multilingual and multicultural abilities. However, these benchmarks prioritize generic language understanding or superficial cultural trivia, leaving the evaluation of grounded tasks -- where models must reason within real-world, context-rich scenarios -- largely unaddressed. To fill this gap, we present CulturALL, a comprehensive and challenging benchmark to assess LLMs' multilingual and multicultural competence on grounded tasks. CulturALL is built via a human--AI collaborative framework: expert annotators ensure appropriate difficulty and factual accuracy, while LLMs lighten the manual workload. By incorporating diverse sources, CulturALL ensures comprehensive scenario coverage. Each item is carefully designed to present a high level of difficulty, making CulturALL challenging. CulturALL contains 2,610 samples in 14 languages from 51 regions, distributed across 16 topics to capture the full breadth of grounded tasks. Experiments show that the best LLM achieves 44.48% accuracy on CulturALL, underscoring substantial room for improvement.

Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.

Understanding why real-world events occur is important for both natural language processing and practical decision-making, yet direct-cause inference remains underexplored in evidence-rich settings. To address this gap, we organized SemEval-2026 Task 12: Abductive Event Reasoning (AER).\footnote{The task data is available at https://github.com/sooo66/semeval2026-task12-dataset.git} The task asks systems to identify the most plausible direct cause of a target event from supporting evidence. We formulate AER as an evidence-grounded multiple-choice benchmark that captures key challenges of real-world causal reasoning, including distributed evidence, indirect background factors, and semantically related but non-causal distractors. The shared task attracted 122 participants and received 518 submissions. This paper presents the task formulation, dataset construction pipeline, evaluation setup, and system results. AER provides a focused benchmark for abductive reasoning over real-world events and highlights challenges for future work on causal reasoning and multi-document understanding.

PET theranostics is transforming precision oncology, yet treatment response varies substantially; many patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy (RLT) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) fail to respond, demanding reliable pre-therapy prediction. While LLM-based agents have shown remarkable potential in complex medical diagnosis, their application to PET theranostic outcome prediction remains unexplored, which faces three key challenges: (1) data and knowledge scarcity: RLT was only FDA-approved in 2022, yielding few training cases and insufficient domain knowledge in general LLMs; (2) heterogeneous information integration: robust prediction hinges on structured knowledge extraction from PET/CT, laboratory tests, and free-text clinical documentation; (3) evidence-grounded reasoning: clinical decisions must be anchored in trial evidence rather than LLM hallucinations. In this paper, we present TheraAgent, to our knowledge, the first agentic framework for PET theranostics, with three core innovations: (1) Multi-Expert Feature Extraction with Confidence-Weighted Consensus, where three specialized experts process heterogeneous inputs with uncertainty quantification; (2) Self-Evolving Agentic Memory (SEA-Mem), which learns prognostic patterns from accumulated cases, enabling case-based reasoning from limited data; (3) Evidence-Calibrated Reasoning, integrating a curated theranostics knowledge base to ground predictions in VISION/TheraP trial evidence. Evaluated on 35 real patients and 400 synthetic cases, TheraAgent achieves 75.7% overall accuracy on real patients and 87.0% on synthetic cases, outperforming MDAgents and MedAgent-Pro by over 20%. These results highlight a promising blueprint for trustworthy AI agents in PET theranostics, enabling trial-calibrated, multi-source decision support. Code will be released upon acceptance.

We present a complete theoretical characterization of Latent Posterior Factors (LPF), a principled framework for aggregating multiple heterogeneous evidence items in probabilistic prediction tasks. Multi-evidence reasoning arises pervasively in high-stakes domains including healthcare diagnosis, financial risk assessment, legal case analysis, and regulatory compliance, yet existing approaches either lack formal guarantees or fail to handle multi-evidence scenarios architecturally. LPF encodes each evidence item into a Gaussian latent posterior via a variational autoencoder, converting posteriors to soft factors through Monte Carlo marginalization, and aggregating factors via exact Sum-Product Network inference (LPF-SPN) or a learned neural aggregator (LPF-Learned). We prove seven formal guarantees spanning the key desiderata for trustworthy AI: Calibration Preservation (ECE <= epsilon + C/sqrt(K_eff)); Monte Carlo Error decaying as O(1/sqrt(M)); a non-vacuous PAC-Bayes bound with train-test gap of 0.0085 at N=4200; operation within 1.12x of the information-theoretic lower bound; graceful degradation as O(epsilondeltasqrt(K)) under corruption, maintaining 88% performance with half of evidence adversarially replaced; O(1/sqrt(K)) calibration decay with R^2=0.849; and exact epistemic-aleatoric uncertainty decomposition with error below 0.002%. All theorems are empirically validated on controlled datasets spanning up to 4,200 training examples. Our theoretical framework establishes LPF as a foundation for trustworthy multi-evidence AI in safety-critical applications.

Industrial maintenance platforms contain rich but fragmented evidence, including free-text work orders, heterogeneous operational sensors or indicators, and structured failure knowledge. These sources are often analyzed in isolation, producing alerts or forecasts that do not support conditional decision-making: given this asset history and behavior, what is happening and what action is warranted? We present Condition Insight Agent, a deployed decision-support framework that integrates maintenance language, behavioral abstractions of operational data, and engineering failure semantics to produce evidence-grounded explanations and advisory actions. The system constrains reasoning through deterministic evidence construction and structured failure knowledge, and applies a rule-based verification loop to suppress unsupported conclusions. Case studies from production CMMS deployments show that this verification-first design operates reliably under heterogeneous and incomplete data while preserving human oversight. Our results demonstrate how constrained LLM-based reasoning can function as a governed decision-support layer for industrial maintenance.

Psychiatric consultation requires agents to elicit discriminative evidence, map uncertain narratives to diagnostic criteria, and decide when evidence suffices. Existing dialogue and retrieval-augmented systems condition policies on raw histories or appended passages, leaving observed evidence, missing checks, differentials, and support reliability entangled. We introduce MIND, a criteria-grounded evidence-state decision interface. At each turn, MIND constructs a typed state containing observed evidence, unresolved criterion checks, active differentials, criterion-linked supports, and reliability metadata. A training-split Psychiatric Reasoning Bank supplies gated supports, turning retrieval into state construction rather than prompt injection. The same state conditions action selection, process rewards, information-gain scoring, and trajectory rectification. Under EMR-grounded simulator protocols, MIND improves accuracy by 8.8 and 7.3 points over strong inference-only, RAG, and RL baselines, with gains transferring to public MDD-5k dialogues. Matched interventions attribute these gains to the shared state rather than prompt length, retrieval text, or formatting. MIND targets screening-level decision support, not autonomous diagnosis. Code is available at https://github.com/Lingxi-mental-health/MIND.Å

Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies. Methods: We evaluated January Mirror, an evidence-grounded clinical reasoning system, against frontier LLMs (GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro) on a 120-question endocrinology board-style examination. Mirror integrates a curated endocrinology and cardiometabolic evidence corpus with a structured reasoning architecture to generate evidence-linked outputs. Mirror operated under a closed-evidence constraint without external retrieval. Comparator LLMs had real-time web access to guidelines and primary literature. Results: Mirror achieved 87.5% accuracy (105/120; 95% CI: 80.4-92.3%), exceeding a human reference of 62.3% and frontier LLMs including GPT-5.2 (74.6%), GPT-5 (74.0%), and Gemini-3-Pro (69.8%). On the 30 most difficult questions (human accuracy less than 50%), Mirror achieved 76.7% accuracy. Top-2 accuracy was 92.5% for Mirror versus 85.25% for GPT-5.2. Conclusions: Mirror provided evidence traceability: 74.2% of outputs cited at least one guideline-tier source, with 100% citation accuracy on manual verification. Curated evidence with explicit provenance can outperform unconstrained web retrieval for subspecialty clinical reasoning and supports auditability for clinical deployment.

Current context augmentation methods, such as retrieval-augmented generation, play a crucial role in bridging a model's internal knowledge boundary and external evidence for multi-hop reasoning. However, they often follow a rigid policy and treat external retrieval as the default action at each step. Such brute-force context expansion incurs unnecessary computational cost and may degrade reasoning performance by saturating the context with redundant or weakly relevant evidence. In this paper, we propose cross-boundary Context Evolution (EvoCtx), a framework that models complex reasoning as an adaptive process of boundary-aware context evolution. EvoCtx dynamically decides whether the next reasoning transition should cross the current evidence boundary through retrieval or refine the reasoning state within the existing context. It estimates the semantic gap between the reasoning state and the accumulated evidence, and strategically alternates between boundary expansion and intra-boundary trajectory refinement. This eliminates redundant retrieval steps and preserves a compact, evidence-supported reasoning trajectory. Extensive experiments on challenging open-domain and multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate that EvoCtx significantly outperforms previous methods, offering an effective approach to complex reasoning tasks. The source code can be accessed at https://github.com/Anya-RB-Chen/EvoCtx.

Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level. Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference. We present EpiQAL, to our knowledge the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering over research literature, comprising three subsets built from open-access articles across diverse diseases. The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening. Experiments on fifteen models spanning open-source and proprietary systems reveal that current LLMs show limited performance on epidemiological reasoning, with multi-step inference posing the greatest challenge. Model rankings shift across subsets, and scale alone does not predict success. Chain-of-Thought prompting benefits multi-step inference but yields mixed results elsewhere. EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction.

While reinforcement learning (RL) enhances their ability to plan and reason across retrieval steps, we identify a critical failure mode in this setting: Tool-Call Hacking. Unlike execution-based tools (e.g., code or math), whose effects are directly observable, the weak observability of causal dependencies between retrieved evidence and reasoning under format- and outcome-level supervision enables agents to maximize surface-level reward signals without genuinely grounding their reasoning in the returned evidence. This leads to distinctive pathologies, including mode collapse via tool overuse and hallucinated tool usage where tool calls are largely decorative. To address this issue, we propose Proof-of-Use (PoU), an evidence grounded RL framework that explicitly optimizes the causal dependency from retrieval to reasoning and final answers. PoU re-fomulate a fine-grained stepwise interaction protocol in which agents must auditably cite normalized evidence identifiers. We operationalize this via a multi-objective reward design consisting of: (1) two progressive process rewards that constrain citation validity at intermediate steps; (2) a global Answer--Support Alignment reward that enforces consistency between final answers and retrieved evidence; and (3) a curriculum-style adaptive reward mixing mechanism that smoothly transitions agents from dense process supervision to sparse outcome-based objectives. Extensive experiments show the strong performance of PoU and demonstrate the effectiveness in mitigating tool-call hacking. Beyond this, PoU exhibits a notable emergent property: adaptive and robust tool-usage patterns naturally arise under domain and tool shifts, even though PoU does not explicitly optimize for tool adaptation.