Peter Zhong

Yidong Gan, David D. Nguyen, Yang Lin et al.

We present RAG-Coding, an agentic method for automated ICD-10-CM coding. RAG-Coding orchestrates four large language model (LLM) agents and grounds their coding decisions in external knowledge sources (e.g. the official coding tabular list and guidelines). By retrieving and cross-referencing relevant knowledge in these sources, the agents enhance coding accuracy and ensure clinical compliance. On the MDACE dataset, RAG-Coding outperforms the best LLM-based baseline by 8-13\% in micro-F1 and 2-8\% in macro-F1 across multiple LLM backbones. Compared to the state-of-the-art pretrained language model method, PLM-ICD, RAG-Coding exhibits higher micro recall (+11\%), while PLM-ICD exhibits higher micro precision (+6\%), yielding comparable micro- and macro-F1. Ablations show stepwise gains, highlighting the importance of incorporating external knowledge. We also release MDACE-2025, updating the original dataset with expert re-annotations with the latest 2025 ICD-10-CM guidelines. This update features more fine-grained code labels and enables evaluation against current clinical standards.

Megan Li, Wendy Bickersteth, Ningjing Tang et al.

Despite growing concerns about the risks of Generative AI (GenAI), there is limited understanding of public perceptions of these risks and their associated failure modes -- defined as recurring patterns of sociotechnical breakdown across the GenAI lifecycle that contribute to risks of real-world harm. To address this gap, we present a survey instrument, validated with eight subject matter experts and deployed on a sample of 960 U.S.-based participants, to assess awareness and perceptions of GenAI's failure modes, their associated risks, and stakeholder responsibilities to address them. To support realism and content validity, our instrument is structured around scenarios grounded in publicly reported incidents and a taxonomy of GenAI's failure modes. Findings suggest that our instrument is (1) effective for assessing risk awareness and perceptions in a way that is grounded in people's current contexts of use, yet is extensible to new contexts that will inevitably arise; and (2) potentially useful for informing the design of AI literacy tools and interventions. We argue for AI literacy and governance approaches that align with how people encounter and reason about GenAI in everyday life.

Stefan Maetschke, David Martinez Iraola, Pieter Barnard et al.

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods, most based on deep learning, have facilitated progress in several fields, including computer vision and natural language understanding. The progress of these AI methods is measured using benchmarks designed to solve challenging tasks, such as visual question answering. A question remains of how much understanding is leveraged by these methods and how appropriate are the current benchmarks to measure understanding capabilities. To answer these questions, we have analysed existing benchmarks and their understanding capabilities, defined by a set of understanding capabilities, and current research streams. We show how progress has been made in benchmark development to measure understanding capabilities of AI methods and we review as well how current methods develop understanding capabilities.