CLEAR: Cross-Source Evidence Adjudication for Large Language Models in Medicine

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16301v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 20:00:16 GMT
• Title: CLEAR: Cross-Source Evidence Adjudication for Large Language Models in Medicine
• Abstract summary: CLEAR is an agentic framework for cross-source evidence adjudication in large language models (LLMs) in medicine.<n> CLEAR independently generates candidate answers from three complementary pathways---parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence.<n>An aggregation verifier jointly evaluates the candidates, supporting evidence, provenance, and source-quality information to identify agreement and conflict across sources.
• Score: 7.517737504590624
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Medical knowledge evolves continuously, whereas the parametric knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) is fixed at training time. External retrieval, including retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), can provide access to newly available evidence, but retrieved information may be irrelevant, incomplete, or conflicting. As a result, external retrieval can in turn degrade the factual accuracy and evidence grounding of LLM outputs. To address this challenge, we propose \textbf{CLEAR}, an agentic framework for cross-source evidence adjudication in LLMs in medicine. CLEAR independently generates candidate answers from three complementary pathways---parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence---reflecting three common sources of information available to LLMs. An aggregation verifier jointly evaluates the candidates, supporting evidence, provenance, and source-quality information to identify agreement and conflict across sources. An adjudication module then determines whether the current conclusion should be preserved or revised through complementary override-guard and challenge-audit mechanisms, while unresolved conflicts trigger targeted follow-up search and re-adjudication.

Related papers

• MIRAGE: Defending Long-Form RAG Against Misinformation Pollution [87.40537931342082]
  We introduce MIRAGE, a training-free, model-agnostic defense for long-form RAG.<n>MIRAGE builds an NLI-based cross-document claim graph and applies a Defended-Claims Gate to either condition generation on a consistent, multi-source supported subset or to block retrieval and answer parametrically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T13:36:12Z)
• 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)
• InfoGatherer: Principled Information Seeking via Evidence Retrieval and Strategic Questioning [50.375547542738055]
  InfoGatherer is a framework that gathers missing information from two complementary sources without collapsing to a definitive answer.<n> InfoGatherer outperforms strong baselines while requiring fewer turns across legal and medical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T04:55:03Z)
• Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval [60.25608870901428]
  Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:42:51Z)
• Multi-Sourced, Multi-Agent Evidence Retrieval for Fact-Checking [47.47518672198846]
  Misinformation spreading over the Internet poses a significant threat to both societies and individuals.<n>Previous methods rely on semantic and social-contextual patterns learned from training data.<n>We propose WKGFC, which exploits authorized open knowledge graph as a core resource of evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T19:29:01Z)
• Contradiction to Consensus: Dual Perspective, Multi Source Retrieval Based Claim Verification with Source Level Disagreement using LLM [0.17188280334580197]
  Claim verification, a.k.a. fact-checking, can help identify potential misinformation.<n>Most automated claim verification systems depend on a single knowledge source.<n>We present a novel system for open-domain claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T02:21:31Z)
• When Evidence Contradicts: Toward Safer Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Healthcare [0.05249805590164902]
  This work investigates the performance of five large language models (LLMs) in generating responses to medicine-related queries.<n>Our findings show that contradictions between highly similar abstracts do, in fact, degrade performance, leading to inconsistencies and reduced factual accuracy in model answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T03:27:54Z)
• DeepSieve: Information Sieving via LLM-as-a-Knowledge-Router [57.28685457991806]
  DeepSieve is an agentic RAG framework that incorporates information sieving via LLM-as-a-knowledge-router.<n>Our design emphasizes modularity, transparency, and adaptability, leveraging recent advances in agentic system design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T17:55:23Z)
• Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [12.923119372847834]
  This paper presents the first systematic evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models for fact-checking.<n>Experiments reveal critical vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art RAG methods, particularly in resolving conflicts stemming from differences in media source credibility.<n>Our results show that effectively incorporating source credibility significantly enhances the ability of RAG models to resolve conflicting evidence and improve fact-checking performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T11:35:03Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Conflicting Evidence [57.66282463340297]
  Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly employing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to improve the factuality of their responses.<n>In practice, these systems often need to handle ambiguous user queries and potentially conflicting information from multiple sources.<n>We propose RAMDocs (Retrieval with Ambiguity and Misinformation in Documents), a new dataset that simulates complex and realistic scenarios for conflicting evidence for a user query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T16:46:11Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation by Evidence Retroactivity in LLMs [19.122314663040726]
  Retroactive Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RetroRAG) is a novel framework to build a retroactive reasoning paradigm.<n>RetroRAG revises and updates the evidence, redirecting the reasoning chain to the correct direction.<n> Empirical evaluations show that RetroRAG significantly outperforms existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:57:42Z)
• Rowen: Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Hallucination Mitigation in LLMs [88.75700174889538]
  Hallucinations present a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs)<n>The utilization of parametric knowledge in generating factual content is constrained by the limited knowledge of LLMs.<n>We present Rowen, a novel framework that enhances LLMs with an adaptive retrieval augmentation process tailored to address hallucinated outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T11:55:40Z)

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.