analiza aiqbench
The paper proposes BioAgent-DF, a method for testing whether a biomedical research agent's final verdict reflects the evidence it actually read and cited. It shows that agents can reach the same verdict after consuming different evidence, and that silent numerical hardware faults can change downstream decisions in a hERG safety-screening case. For AI readers, the practical point is that auditing agents should track intermediate evidence and execution state, not just final outputs. The results come from a small set of models and tasks, so they show a failure mode and an audit approach rather than a general reliability rate.
From Tool State to Scientific Action: Auditing Decision Provenance in Biomedical Research Agents
arXiv:2611.01527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A scientific agent can give the same verdict while reading and citing different evidence. BioAgent-DF tests this separation using paired reference and candidate values saved at the same scientific computation site. It restores or transplants those values at their original coordinates, then runs the agent on healthy hardware. Across eight SciFact batches, Qwen3.5-4B shows repeatable citation changes in three capture-claim combinations, and Gemma 3 4B IT shows repeatable read and citation changes in four. These seven combinations cover two claims. Full restoration recovers the reference evidence sets while verdicts remain unchanged. Verdict changes observed under the baseline prompt did not recur under the explicit-example prompt. Complementary tool and optimizer experiments distinguish recovery of numerical state, recovery of ranked lists, and restoration of an agent's visible history. These results show that an audit should track both the evidence an agent uses and its final answer. In hERG cardiac-safety assay allocation, silent numerical faults changed testing decisions while the fixed-budget shortlist kept the same number of compounds labeled as blockers. After the agent had used faulty values, restoring its earlier execution state and supplying certified scores recovered all 39 changed decisions, whereas replacing the prediction file recovered none; no incorrect action was committed. A streaming implementation of the arithmetic checks reduced the total time for forward execution and verification by 42.4% relative to the original FP64 implementation, with identical flags and recovery outputs.
Abstract:A scientific agent can give the same verdict while reading and citing different evidence. BioAgent-DF tests this separation using paired reference and candidate values saved at the same scientific computation site. It restores or transplants those values at their original coordinates, then runs the agent on healthy hardware. Across eight SciFact batches, Qwen3.5-4B shows repeatable citation changes in three capture-claim combinations, and Gemma 3 4B IT shows repeatable read and citation changes in four. These seven combinations cover two claims. Full restoration recovers the reference evidence sets while verdicts remain unchanged. Verdict changes observed under the baseline prompt did not recur under the explicit-example prompt. Complementary tool and optimizer experiments distinguish recovery of numerical state, recovery of ranked lists, and restoration of an agent's visible history. These results show that an audit should track both the evidence an agent uses and its final answer. In hERG cardiac-safety assay allocation, silent numerical faults changed testing decisions while the fixed-budget shortlist kept the same number of compounds labeled as blockers. After the agent had used faulty values, restoring its earlier execution state and supplying certified scores recovered all 39 changed decisions, whereas replacing the prediction file recovered none; no incorrect action was committed. A streaming implementation of the arithmetic checks reduced the total time for forward execution and verification by 42.4% relative to the original FP64 implementation, with identical flags and recovery outputs.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
arXiv:2611.01527 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2611.01527v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.01527 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 331 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
An Autonomous Scientific Knowledge Generation Framework for AI-Driven Scientific Discovery
arXiv · 5 aug. 2026
SciFigPlag-Bench: A Benchmark for Provenance-Aware Scientific Figure Plagiarism Detection
arXiv · 3 aug. 2026
OpenAI4S: Code as Action, Science as Sessions
arXiv · 16 sept. 2026
Scientific Image Synthesis: Benchmarking, Methodologies, and Downstream Utility
arXiv · 27 aug. 2026