Ruling Out to Rule In: Contrastive Hypothesis Retrieval for Medical Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04593v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 11:13:57 GMT
• Title: Ruling Out to Rule In: Contrastive Hypothesis Retrieval for Medical Question Answering
• Abstract summary: We propose Contrastive Hypothesis Retrieval (CHR), a framework inspired by the process of clinical differential diagnosis.<n>CHR scores documents by promoting $H+$-aligned evidence while penalizing $H-$-aligned content.<n>CHR bridges clinical reasoning with retrieval mechanism design and offers a practical path to reducing hard-negative contamination in medical RAG systems.
• Score: 1.6886041345889138
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external medical knowledge, yet standard retrievers frequently surface hard negatives that are semantically close to the query but describe clinically distinct conditions. While existing query-expansion methods improve query representation to mitigate ambiguity, they typically focus on enriching target-relevant semantics without an explicit mechanism to selectively suppress specific, clinically plausible hard negatives. This leaves the system prone to retrieving plausible mimics that overshadow the actual diagnosis, particularly when such mimics are dominant within the corpus. We propose Contrastive Hypothesis Retrieval (CHR), a framework inspired by the process of clinical differential diagnosis. CHR generates a target hypothesis $H^+$ for the likely correct answer and a mimic hypothesis $H^-$ for the most plausible incorrect alternative, then scores documents by promoting $H^+$-aligned evidence while penalizing $H^-$-aligned content. Across three medical QA benchmarks and three answer generators, CHR outperforms all five baselines in every configuration, with improvements of up to 10.4 percentage points over the next-best method. On the $n=587$ pooled cases where CHR answers correctly while embedded hypothetical-document query expansion does not, 85.2\% have no shared documents between the top-5 retrieval lists of CHR and of that baseline, consistent with substantive retrieval redirection rather than light re-ranking of the same candidates. By explicitly modeling what to avoid alongside what to find, CHR bridges clinical reasoning with retrieval mechanism design and offers a practical path to reducing hard-negative contamination in medical RAG systems.

Related papers

• ConRub-Med: Reinforcement Learning with Consensus Rubrics for Open-Ended Medical Question Answering [33.27644708906731]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been especially effective in mathematics and coding.<n>We introduce ConRub-Med to preserve useful distinctions as rubric feedback moves from construction to policy optimization.<n>ConRub-Med ranks first on six of nine benchmarks and the highest medical and generalization averages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T14:48:15Z)
• Beyond Relevance: Bayesian Evidence Acquisition for Agentic Whole-Slide Image Reasoning [72.86819994769634]
  Whole-slide image (WSI) reasoning requires an agent to sequentially acquire visual evidence before answering a diagnostic question.<n>We propose BEACON, a plug-and-play agentic framework that reformulates WSI reasoning as a Bayesian evidence acquisition problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T08:40:57Z)
• Synergistic Perception-Reasoning Governance: Grounding Medical MLLMs with Verifiable Anatomical Evidence [45.78409219344429]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show strong promise for clinical VQA and radiology report generation, yet inference-time hallucinations undermine trustworthy use.<n>We propose a holistic, training-free evidence-injection framework that systematically mitigates hallucinations through dual-side evidence injection.<n>We conduct systematic evaluations on 2 tasks and 5 datasets using textttLLaVA-1.5-7B, texttLLaVA-Med-1.5-7B, texttQwen3-VL-8B/32B, and textttInternVL
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T08:07:25Z)
• R$^2$-Searcher: Calibrating Retrieval and Reasoning Boundaries for Agentic Search [59.034878430183305]
  R$2$-Searcher explicitly explores and calibrates the retrieval and reasoning boundaries.<n>We show that R$2$-Searcher significantly outperforms state-of-the-art agentic search methods in answer accuracy and retrieval-reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-26T19:44:34Z)
• HERO: Hypothesis-Driven Evidence Retrieval from Omics for Multi-Task Breast Cancer Analysis [4.001315295826918]
  HERO sets new state-of-the-art across ER, PR, HER2, subtype, and risk prediction, outperforming both multimodal fusion and VLM-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T07:28:10Z)
• ProtoMedAgent: Multimodal Clinical Interpretability via Privacy-Aware Agentic Workflows [7.27267618572654]
  ProtoMedAgent formalizes multimodal clinical reporting as an iterative, zero-gradient test-time optimization problem.<n>Online generation is strictly constrained by exact set-theoretic differentials and a reflective Scribe-Critic loop.<n>ProtoMedAgent achieves 91.2% Comparison Set Faithfulness where it fundamentally outperforms standard RAG (46.2%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T20:57:37Z)
• Same Verdict, Different Reasons: LLM-as-a-Judge and Clinician Disagreement on Medical Chatbot Completeness [49.2667937337333]
  We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete patient-facing medical responses.<n>We evaluate three granularities (General-Likert, Analytical-Rubric, Dynamic-Checklist) and three backbone models across two clinician-annotated datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T19:01:55Z)
• Hypothesis-Conditioned Query Rewriting for Decision-Useful Retrieval [39.146761527401424]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding generation in external, non-parametric knowledge.<n>Existing RAG methods rely on a single initial query, which often favors topical relevance over decision-relevant evidence.<n>We propose Hypothesis-Conditioned Query Rewriting (HCQR), a training-free pre-retrieval framework that reorients RAG from topic-oriented retrieval to evidence-oriented retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T15:15:58Z)
• From Conflict to Consensus: Boosting Medical Reasoning via Multi-Round Agentic RAG [65.0203623486525]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit high reasoning capacity in medical question-answering.<n>Their tendency to produce hallucinations and outdated knowledge poses critical risks in healthcare fields.<n>Existing methods rely on noisy token-level signals and lack the multi-round refinement required for complex reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:25:30Z)
• Self-MedRAG: a Self-Reflective Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Reliable Medical Question Answering [39.146761527401424]
  Self-MedRAG is a self-reflective hybrid framework designed to mimic the iterative hypothesis-verification process of clinical reasoning.<n>It integrates a hybrid retrieval strategy, combining sparse (BM25) and dense (Contriever) retrievers via Reciprocal Rank Fusion.<n>It employs a generator to produce answers with supporting rationales, which are then assessed by a lightweight self-reflection module.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T02:56:04Z)
• MuISQA: Multi-Intent Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Scientific Question Answering [16.26521741515184]
  Multi-Intent Scientific Question Answering (MuISQA) benchmark designed to evaluate RAG systems on heterogeneous evidence coverage across sub-questions.<n>In addition, we propose an intent-aware retrieval framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to hypothesize potential answers, decompose them into intent-specific queries, and retrieve supporting passages for each underlying intent.<n>Experiments on both MuISQA benchmark and other general RAG datasets demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms conventional approaches, particularly in retrieval accuracy and evidence coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T12:03:36Z)
• MedAlign: A Synergistic Framework of Multimodal Preference Optimization and Federated Meta-Cognitive Reasoning [52.064286116035134]
  We develop MedAlign, a framework to ensure visually accurate LVLM responses for Medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA)<n>We first propose a multimodal Direct Preference Optimization (mDPO) objective to align preference learning with visual context.<n>We then design a Retrieval-Aware Mixture-of-Experts (RA-MoE) architecture that utilizes image and text similarity to route queries to a specialized and context-augmented LVLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T02:11:05Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• ReasonMed: A 370K Multi-Agent Generated Dataset for Advancing Medical Reasoning [54.30630356786752]
  ReasonMed is the largest medical reasoning dataset to date, with 370k high-quality examples.<n>It is built through a multi-agent generation, verification, and refinement process.<n>Using ReasonMed, we find that integrating detailed CoT reasoning with concise answer summaries yields the most robust fine-tuning results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T08:36:55Z)
• R2MED: A Benchmark for Reasoning-Driven Medical Retrieval [21.743193381874878]
  We introduce R2MED, the first benchmark explicitly designed for reasoning-driven medical retrieval.<n>It comprises 876 queries spanning three tasks: Q&A reference retrieval, clinical evidence retrieval, and clinical case retrieval.<n>We evaluate 15 widely-used retrieval systems on R2MED and find that even the best model achieves only 31.4 nDCG@10.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T16:15:30Z)
• ELOQ: Resources for Enhancing LLM Detection of Out-of-Scope Questions [52.33835101586687]
  We study out-of-scope questions, where the retrieved document appears semantically similar to the question but lacks the necessary information to answer it.<n>We propose a guided hallucination-based approach ELOQ to automatically generate a diverse set of out-of-scope questions from post-cutoff documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T16:11:29Z)

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.