BELIEF: Structured Evidence Modeling and Uncertainty-Aware Fusion for Biomedical Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17435v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 12:58:55 GMT
• Title: BELIEF: Structured Evidence Modeling and Uncertainty-Aware Fusion for Biomedical Question Answering
• Abstract summary: BELIEF is a structured evidence modeling and uncertainty-aware fusion framework for biomedical question answering.<n>It converts retrieved documents into evidence objects that record clinical attributes, source quality, question relevance, support strength, and the associated candidate hypothesis.<n>BelIEF improves retrieved-evidence utilization by making evidence structure, path disagreement, and decision uncertainty explicit.
• Score: 28.39203052317792
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Quantitative Evidence Mining for Plausibility-Aware Biomedical AI [0.0]
  We argue for a shift toward quantitative evidence mining.<n>We outline a framework for plausibility-aware AI that treats extracted claims as auditable evidence objects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T07:48:25Z)
• Twin Worlds: Equivariance-Based Abstention for Evidence-Grounded Reasoning [38.63002496590365]
  We propose a framework for improving reliability in knowledge-intensive reasoning through equivariance-based abstention.<n>A key contributing factor is that entity mentions in context activate memorised associations, causing models to generate plausible responses ungrounded in evidence.<n>We construct multiple worlds via typed substitutions of the original input that preserve relational structure while reducing parametric priors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T07:33:29Z)
• 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)
• HiEviDR-Bench: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research [52.87128503345243]
  We introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research.<n>HiEviDR-Bench represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation.<n>We develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T23:50:46Z)
• Dementia Etiology Diagnosis via Collaborative Meta Knowledge Enhancement [81.27196033392559]
  We propose a Collaborative Meta Knowledge Enhancement (COME) framework for dementia etiology diagnosis.<n>COME injects multi-center acquisition semantics, source identifiers, and modality indicators as heterogeneity-aware embeddings into a unified Transformer architecture for scale-up training.<n>Our method achieves state-of-the-art in-domain performance with a mean macro-averaged AUC of 85.62% and a 4.29-point gain over the strongest baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T04:26:47Z)
• Beyond the Leaderboard: Design Lessons for Trustworthy Multimodal VQA [4.080704298118247]
  multimodal AI must combine visual and textual evidence while remaining reliable and interpretable.<n>We analyze design choices across nine documented systems for question answering and explanation quality.<n>The findings support trustworthy multimodal healthcare AI based on data fusion, explainability, and resilient evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-16T17:38:19Z)
• PathoSage: Towards Multi-Source Evidence Adjudication in Pathology via Experience-Aware Agentic Workflow [36.83789028433599]
  PathoSage is a framework that separates knowledge retrieval, evidence collection, and evidence adjudication for patch-level pathology reasoning.<n>Our results highlight explicit evidence adjudication and reliability-aware tool modeling as key ingredients for robust pathology agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T12:30:03Z)
• 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)
• Facet-Level Tracing of Evidence Uncertainty and Hallucination in RAG [8.18791900871137]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation aims to reduce hallucinations by grounding answers in retrieved evidence.<n>Existing evaluations focus on answer-level or passage-level accuracy, offering limited insight into how evidence is used during generation.<n>We introduce a facet-level diagnostics framework for QA that decomposes each input question into atomic reasoning facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T09:59:43Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical LLMs: Benchmarking and Enhancing Confidence Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Consultation [97.36081721024728]
  We propose the first benchmark for assessing confidence in multi-turn interaction during realistic medical consultations.<n>Our benchmark unifies three types of medical data for open-ended diagnostic generation.<n>We present MedConf, an evidence-grounded linguistic self-assessment framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T04:51:39Z)
• MedTrust-RAG: Evidence Verification and Trust Alignment for Biomedical Question Answering [21.855579328680246]
  We propose MedTrust-Guided Iterative RAG, a framework designed to enhance factual consistency and hallucinations in medical QA.<n>First, it enforces citation-aware reasoning by requiring all generated content to be explicitly grounded in retrieved medical documents.<n>Second, it employs an iterative retrieval-verification process, where a verification agent assesses evidence adequacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T07:59:11Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Question Answering [60.72223137560633]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for natural language generation in healthcare, but risk hallucinating factually incorrect information. We benchmark popular uncertainty estimation (UE) methods with different model sizes on medical question-answering datasets. Our results show that current approaches generally perform poorly in this domain, highlighting the challenge of UE for medical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T16:51:33Z)
• Retrieve to Explain: Evidence-driven Predictions for Explainable Drug Target Identification [0.791663505497707]
  Retrieve to Explain (R2E) is a retrieval-based model that scores and ranks all possible answers to a research question.<n>R2E represents each answer only in terms of its supporting evidence, with the answer itself masked.<n>We developed R2E for the challenging scientific discovery task of drug target identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T15:13:17Z)
• Prototype-based Aleatoric Uncertainty Quantification for Cross-modal Retrieval [139.21955930418815]
  Cross-modal Retrieval methods build similarity relations between vision and language modalities by jointly learning a common representation space. However, the predictions are often unreliable due to the Aleatoric uncertainty, which is induced by low-quality data, e.g., corrupt images, fast-paced videos, and non-detailed texts. We propose a novel Prototype-based Aleatoric Uncertainty Quantification (PAU) framework to provide trustworthy predictions by quantifying the uncertainty arisen from the inherent data ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T09:41:19Z)

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.