Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their increasing use in medical question-answering necessitate rigorous evaluation of their reliability. A critical challenge lies in hallucination, where models generate plausible yet factually incorrect outputs. In the medical domain, this poses serious risks to patient safety and clinical decision-making. To address this, we introduce, the first benchmark specifically designed for medical hallucination detection. MedHallu comprises 10,000 high-quality question-answer pairs derived from PubMedQA, with hallucinated answers systematically generated through a controlled pipeline. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o, Llama-3.1, and the medically fine-tuned UltraMedical, struggle with this binary hallucination detection task, with the best model achieving an F1 score as low as 0.625 for detecting ”hard” category hallucinations. Using bidirectional entailment clustering, we show that harder-to-detect hallucinations are semantically closer to ground truth. Through experiments, we also show incorporating domain-specific knowledge and introducing a ”not sure” category as one of the answer categories improves the precision and F1 scores by up to 38% relative to baselines.

Due to the widespread dissemination of rumors on social media platforms, detecting rumors has been a long-standing concern for various communities. However, existing rumor detection methods rarely consider the fairness issues inherent in the model, which can lead to biased predictions across different stakeholder groups (e.g., domains and originating platforms of the detected content), also undermining their detection effectiveness. In this work, we propose a two-step framework to address this issue. First, we perform unsupervised partitioning to dynamically identify potential unfair data patterns without requiring sensitive attribute annotations. Then, we apply invariant learning to these partitions to extract fair and informative feature representations that enhance rumor detection. Extensive experiments show that our method outperforms strong baselines regarding detection and fairness performance, and also demonstrate robust performance on out-of-distribution samples. Further empirical results indicate that our learned features remain informative and fair across stakeholder groups and can correct errors when applied to existing baselines.

Academic question answering (QA) in heterogeneous scholarly networks presents unique challenges requiring both structural understanding and interpretable reasoning. While graph neural networks (GNNs) capture structured graph information and large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities in semantic comprehension, current approaches lack integration at the reasoning level. We propose HetGCoT, a framework enabling LLMs to effectively leverage and learn information from graphs to reason interpretable academic QA results. Our framework introduces three technical contributions: (1) a framework that transforms heterogeneous graph structural information into LLM-processable reasoning chains, (2) an adaptive metapath selection mechanism identifying relevant subgraphs for specific queries, and (3) a multi-step reasoning strategy systematically incorporating graph contexts into the reasoning process. Experiments on OpenAlex and DBLP datasets show our approach outperforms all sota baselines. The framework demonstrates adaptability across different LLM architectures and applicability to various scholarly question answering tasks.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) succeed in human-guided conversations such as instruction following and question answering, the potential of LLM-guided conversations—where LLMs direct the discourse and steer the conversation’s objectives—remains under-explored. In this study, we first characterize LLM-guided conversation into three fundamental components: (i) Goal Navigation; (ii) Context Management; (iii) Empathetic Engagement, and propose GuideLLM as an installation. We then implement an interviewing environment for the evaluation of LLM-guided conversation. Specifically, various topics are involved in this environment for comprehensive interviewing evaluation, resulting in around 1.4k turns of utterances, 184k tokens, and over 200 events mentioned during the interviewing for each chatbot evaluation. We compare GuideLLM with 6 state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o and Llama-3-70b-Instruct, from the perspective of interviewing quality, and autobiography generation quality. For automatic evaluation, we derive user proxies from multiple autobiographies and employ LLM-as-a-judge to score LLM behaviors. We further conduct a human-involved experiment by employing 45 human participants to chat with GuideLLM and baselines. We then collect human feedback, preferences, and ratings regarding the qualities of conversation and autobiography. Experimental results indicate that GuideLLM significantly outperforms baseline LLMs in automatic evaluation and achieves consistent leading performances in human ratings.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have achieved promising performances across various applications. Nonetheless, the ongoing challenge of integrating long-tail knowledge continues to impede the seamless adoption of LLMs in specialized domains. In this work, we introduce DALK, a.k.a. Dynamic Co-Augmentation of LLMs and KG, to address this limitation and demonstrate its ability on studying Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), a specialized sub-field in biomedicine and a global health priority. With a synergized framework of LLM and KG mutually enhancing each other, we first leverage LLM to construct an evolving AD-specific knowledge graph (KG) sourced from AD-related scientific literature, and then we utilize a coarse-to-fine sampling method with a novel self-aware knowledge retrieval approach to select appropriate knowledge from the KG to augment LLM inference capabilities. The experimental results, conducted on our constructed AD question answering (ADQA) benchmark, underscore the efficacy of DALK. Additionally, we perform a series of detailed analyses that can offer valuable insights and guidelines for the emerging topic of mutually enhancing KG and LLM.

A human decision-maker benefits the most from an AI assistant that corrects for their biases. For problems such as generating interpretation of a radiology report given findings, a system predicting only highly likely outcomes may be less useful, where such outcomes are already obvious to the user. To alleviate biases in human decision-making, it is worth considering a broad differential diagnosis, going beyond the most likely options. We introduce a new task, “less likely brainstorming,” that asks a model to generate outputs that humans think are relevant but less likely to happen. We explore the task in two settings: a brain MRI interpretation generation setting and an everyday commonsense reasoning setting. We found that a baseline approach of training with less likely hypotheses as targets generates outputs that humans evaluate as either likely or irrelevant nearly half of the time; standard MLE training is not effective. To tackle this problem, we propose a controlled text generation method that uses a novel contrastive learning strategy to encourage models to differentiate between generating likely and less likely outputs according to humans. We compare our method with several state-of-the-art controlled text generation models via automatic and human evaluations and show that our models’ capability of generating less likely outputs is improved.

Generating a summary from findings has been recently explored (Zhang et al., 2018, 2020) in note types such as radiology reports that typically have short length. In this work, we focus on echocardiogram notes that is longer and more complex compared to previous note types. We formally define the task of echocardiography conclusion generation (EchoGen) as generating a conclusion given the findings section, with emphasis on key cardiac findings. To promote the development of EchoGen methods, we present a new benchmark, which consists of two datasets collected from two hospitals. We further compare both standard and start-of-the-art methods on this new benchmark, with an emphasis on factual consistency. To accomplish this, we develop a tool to automatically extract concept-attribute tuples from the text. We then propose an evaluation metric, FactComp, to compare concept-attribute tuples between the human reference and generated conclusions. Both automatic and human evaluations show that there is still a significant gap between human-written and machine-generated conclusions on echo reports in terms of factuality and overall quality.