Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02798v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 09:36:43 GMT
• Title: Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification
• Abstract summary: Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
• Score: 60.18369393468405
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As LLM-powered agents have been used for high-stakes decision-making, such as clinical diagnosis, it becomes critical to develop reliable verification of their decisions to facilitate trustworthy deployment. Yet, existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration. To address this, we establish GLEAN, an agent verification framework with Guideline-grounded Evidence Accumulation that compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals. GLEAN evaluates the step-wise alignment with domain guidelines and aggregates multi-guideline ratings into surrogate features, which are accumulated along the trajectory and calibrated into correctness probabilities using Bayesian logistic regression. Moreover, the estimated uncertainty triggers active verification, which selectively collects additional evidence for uncertain cases via expanding guideline coverage and performing differential checks. We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset, surpassing the best baseline by 12% in AUROC and 50% in Brier score reduction, which confirms the effectiveness in both discrimination and calibration. In addition, the expert study with clinicians recognizes GLEAN's utility in practice.

Related papers

• SafeImpute: Reliable Clinical Data Imputation via Conformal Selection [35.40404498771435]
  Clinical care often relies on key laboratory indicators, yet real-world patient visits are sparse and tests are ordered irregularly.<n>We study reliable clinical imputation, aiming to produce accurate imputations while selectively releasing the reliable results.<n>We propose SafeImpute, a reliable imputation framework for irregular and sparse clinical longitudinal records.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T20:16:21Z)
• Diagnosing LLM Arbitration Behavior over Pre-evidence Epistemic States in RAG-based Fact-Checking [14.164769475625391]
  In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence.<n>We introduce textscPAVE (emphPrior-Aware Verifier Evaluation), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states.<n>Experiments reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T09:37:56Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Depression Estimation via Disentangled Evidential Learning [50.22167852149165]
  We propose EviDep, an evidential learning framework that jointly quantifies depression severity.<n>EviDep enforces strict information integrity to guarantee robust evidence synthesis.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art predictive accuracy and superior uncertainty calibration, delivering a robust fail-safe mechanism for trustworthy clinical screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T13:27:11Z)
• Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correction [72.89352076103889]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn.<n>We introduce MINT, a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases.<n>We uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T00:23:10Z)
• Agentic Cognitive Profiling: Realigning Automated Alzheimer's Disease Detection with Clinical Construct Validity [66.94391219005291]
  This paper proposes Agentic Cognitive Profiling (ACP), an agentic framework that realigns automated screening with clinical protocol logic.<n>Central to our design is decoupling semantic understanding from measurement by delegating all quantification to deterministic function calling.<n>ACP achieves 90.5% score match rate in task examination and 85.3% accuracy in AD prediction, surpassing popular baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T06:15:35Z)
• UltrasoundAgents: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Evidence-Chain Reasoning for Breast Ultrasound Diagnosis [14.027321451902734]
  We propose a hierarchical multi-agent framework, termed UltrasoundAgents.<n>A main agent localizes the lesion in the full image and triggers a crop-and-zoom operation.<n>A sub-agent analyzes the local view and predicts four clinically relevant attributes, namely echogenicity pattern, calcification, boundary type, and edge morphology.<n>The main agent then integrates these structured attributes to perform evidence-based reasoning and output the BI-RADS category and the malignancy prediction, while producing reviewable intermediate evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T15:03:52Z)
• Calibrated Bayesian Deep Learning for Explainable Decision Support Systems Based on Medical Imaging [6.826979426009301]
  It is imperative that models quantify uncertainty in a manner that correlates with prediction correctness, allowing clinicians to identify unreliable outputs for further review.<n>The present paper proposes a generalizable probabilistic optimization framework grounded in Bayesian deep learning.<n>Specifically, a novel Confidence-Uncertainty Boundary Loss (CUB-Loss) is introduced that imposes penalties on high-certainty errors and low-certainty correct predictions.<n>The proposed framework is validated on three distinct medical imaging tasks: automatic screening of pneumonia, diabetic retinopathy detection, and identification of skin lesions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T14:03:41Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• Scalably Enhancing the Clinical Validity of a Task Benchmark with Physician Oversight [5.202988483354374]
  In this work, we propose viewing benchmarks for complex tasks as ''in-progress living documents'' that should be periodically re-evaluated.<n>We introduce a systematic, physician-in-the-loop pipeline that leverages advanced agentic verifiers to audit and relabel MedCalc-Bench.<n>Our audit reveals that a notable fraction of original labels diverge from medical ground truth due to extraction errors, calculator logic mismatches, and clinical ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T18:59:34Z)
• Leveraging Evidence-Guided LLMs to Enhance Trustworthy Depression Diagnosis [8.935425124628452]
  We propose a two-stage diagnostic framework that enhances transparency, trustworthiness, and reliability.<n>First, we introduce Evidence-Guided Diagnostic Reasoning (EGDR), which guides LLMs to generate structured diagnostic hypotheses.<n>Second, we propose a Diagnosis Confidence Scoring (DCS) module that evaluates the factual accuracy and logical consistency of generated diagnoses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-22T07:08:23Z)
• A Multi-faceted Analysis of Cognitive Abilities: Evaluating Prompt Methods with Large Language Models on the CONSORT Checklist [1.1731001328350983]
  This study applies a behavioral and metacognitive analytic approach using an expert-validated dataset.<n>We analyze both cognitive adaptation and calibration error using metrics: Expected Error (ECE) and a baseline-normalized Relative Error (RCE)<n>Our results reveal pronounced miscalibration and overconfidence in both models, especially under clinical role-playing conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T00:15:02Z)
• Timely Clinical Diagnosis through Active Test Selection [49.091903570068155]
  We propose ACTMED (Adaptive Clinical Test selection via Model-based Experimental Design) to better emulate real-world diagnostic reasoning.<n>LLMs act as flexible simulators, generating plausible patient state distributions and supporting belief updates without requiring structured, task-specific training data.<n>We evaluate ACTMED on real-world datasets and show it can optimize test selection to improve diagnostic accuracy, interpretability, and resource use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T18:10:45Z)
• MedMMV: A Controllable Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Verifiable Clinical Reasoning [35.97057940590796]
  We introduce MedMMV, a controllable multi-agent framework for reliable and verifiable clinical reasoning.<n>On six medical benchmarks, MedMMV improves accuracy by up to 12.7% and, more critically, demonstrates superior reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T05:51:25Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Expert Control: Enhancing the Reliability of Medical Vision-Language Models [52.2001050216955]
  Existing methods aim to enhance the performance of Medical Vision Language Model (MedVLM) by adjusting model structure, fine-tuning with high-quality data, or through preference fine-tuning.<n>We propose an expert-in-the-loop framework named Expert-Controlled-Free Guidance (Expert-CFG) to align MedVLM with clinical expertise without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T09:03:30Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by Modeling Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [57.023423137202485]
  Concerns regarding the reliability of medical image segmentation persist among clinicians.<n>We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks.<n>By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for medical image segmentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.