Samir Tulebaev

Yubin Kim, Hyewon Jeong, Shan Chen et al.

Hallucinations in foundation models arise from autoregressive training objectives that prioritize token-likelihood optimization over epistemic accuracy, fostering overconfidence and poorly calibrated uncertainty. We define medical hallucination as any model-generated output that is factually incorrect, logically inconsistent, or unsupported by authoritative clinical evidence in ways that could alter clinical decisions. We evaluated 11 foundation models (7 general-purpose, 4 medical-specialized) across seven medical hallucination tasks spanning medical reasoning and biomedical information retrieval. General-purpose models achieved significantly higher proportions of hallucination-free responses than medical-specialized models (median: 76.6% vs 51.3%, difference = 25.2%, 95% CI: 18.7-31.3%, Mann-Whitney U = 27.0, p = 0.012, rank-biserial r = -0.64). Top-performing models such as Gemini-2.5 Pro exceeded 97% accuracy when augmented with chain-of-thought prompting (base: 87.6%), while medical-specialized models like MedGemma ranged from 28.6-61.9% despite explicit training on medical corpora. Chain-of-thought reasoning significantly reduced hallucinations in 86.4% of tested comparisons after FDR correction (q < 0.05), demonstrating that explicit reasoning traces enable self-verification and error detection. Physician audits confirmed that 64-72% of residual hallucinations stemmed from causal or temporal reasoning failures rather than knowledge gaps. A global survey of clinicians (n = 70) validated real-world impact: 91.8% had encountered medical hallucinations, and 84.7% considered them capable of causing patient harm. The underperformance of medical-specialized models despite domain training indicates that safety emerges from sophisticated reasoning capabilities and broad knowledge integration developed during large-scale pre-training, not from narrow optimization.

Yubin Kim, Zhiyuan Hu, Hyewon Jeong et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) as clinical agents require careful behavioral adaptation. While adept at reactive tasks (e.g., diagnosis reasoning), LLMs often struggle with proactive engagement, like unprompted identification of critical missing information or risks. We introduce BehaviorBench, a comprehensive dataset to evaluate agent behaviors across a clinical assistance spectrum, ranging from reactive query responses to proactive interventions (e.g., clarifying ambiguities, flagging overlooked critical data). Our BehaviorBench experiments reveal LLMs' inconsistent proactivity. To address this, we propose BehaviorSFT, a novel training strategy using behavioral tokens to explicitly condition LLMs for dynamic behavioral selection along this spectrum. BehaviorSFT boosts performance, achieving up to 97.3% overall Macro F1 on BehaviorBench and improving proactive task scores (e.g., from 95.0% to 96.5% for Qwen2.5-7B-Ins). Crucially, blind clinician evaluations confirmed BehaviorSFT-trained agents exhibit more realistic clinical behavior, striking a superior balance between helpful proactivity (e.g., timely, relevant suggestions) and necessary restraint (e.g., avoiding over-intervention) versus standard fine-tuning or explicit instructed agents.

Yubin Kim, Hyewon Jeong, Chanwoo Park et al.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed as agents introduce significant safety risks in clinical settings due to their potential for error and single points of failure. We introduce Tiered Agentic Oversight (TAO), a hierarchical multi-agent system that enhances AI safety through layered, automated supervision. Inspired by clinical hierarchies (e.g., nurse-physician-specialist) in hospital, TAO routes tasks to specialized agents based on complexity, creating a robust safety framework through automated inter- and intra-tier communication and role-playing. Crucially, this hierarchical structure functions as an effective error-correction mechanism, absorbing up to 24% of individual agent errors before they can compound. Our experiments reveal TAO outperforms single-agent and other multi-agent systems on 4 out of 5 healthcare safety benchmarks, with up to an 8.2% improvement. Ablation studies confirm key design principles of the system: (i) its adaptive architecture is over 3% safer than static, single-tier configurations, and (ii) its lower tiers are indispensable, as their removal causes the most significant degradation in overall safety. Finally, we validated the system's synergy with human doctors in a user study where a physician, acting as the highest tier agent, provided corrective feedback that improved medical triage accuracy from 40% to 60%. Project Page: https://tiered-agentic-oversight.github.io/