Juraj Vladika

Juraj Vladika, Ivana Hacajová, Florian Matthes

Fact verification (FV) aims to assess the veracity of a claim based on relevant evidence. The traditional approach for automated FV includes a three-part pipeline relying on short evidence snippets and encoder-only inference models. More recent approaches leverage the multi-turn nature of LLMs to address FV as a step-by-step problem where questions inquiring additional context are generated and answered until there is enough information to make a decision. This iterative method makes the verification process rational and explainable. While these methods have been tested for encyclopedic claims, exploration on domain-specific and realistic claims is missing. In this work, we apply an iterative FV system on three medical fact-checking datasets and evaluate it with multiple settings, including different LLMs, external web search, and structured reasoning using logic predicates. We demonstrate improvements in the final performance over traditional approaches and the high potential of step-by-step FV systems for domain-specific claims.

Juraj Vladika, Ihsan Soydemir, Florian Matthes

While large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities to generate coherent text, they suffer from the issue of hallucinations -- factually inaccurate statements. Among numerous approaches to tackle hallucinations, especially promising are the self-correcting methods. They leverage the multi-turn nature of LLMs to iteratively generate verification questions inquiring additional evidence, answer them with internal or external knowledge, and use that to refine the original response with the new corrections. These methods have been explored for encyclopedic generation, but less so for domains like news summarization. In this work, we investigate two state-of-the-art self-correcting systems by applying them to correct hallucinated summaries using evidence from three search engines. We analyze the results and provide insights into systems' performance, revealing interesting practical findings on the benefits of search engine snippets and few-shot prompts, as well as high alignment of G-Eval and human evaluation.

Juraj Vladika, Annika Domres, Mai Nguyen et al.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit extensive medical knowledge but are prone to hallucinations and inaccurate citations, which pose a challenge to their clinical adoption and regulatory compliance. Current methods, such as Retrieval Augmented Generation, partially address these issues by grounding answers in source documents, but hallucinations and low fact-level explainability persist. In this work, we introduce a novel atomic fact-checking framework designed to enhance the reliability and explainability of LLMs used in medical long-form question answering. This method decomposes LLM-generated responses into discrete, verifiable units called atomic facts, each of which is independently verified against an authoritative knowledge base of medical guidelines. This approach enables targeted correction of errors and direct tracing to source literature, thereby improving the factual accuracy and explainability of medical Q&A. Extensive evaluation using multi-reader assessments by medical experts and an automated open Q&A benchmark demonstrated significant improvements in factual accuracy and explainability. Our framework achieved up to a 40% overall answer improvement and a 50% hallucination detection rate. The ability to trace each atomic fact back to the most relevant chunks from the database provides a granular, transparent explanation of the generated responses, addressing a major gap in current medical AI applications. This work represents a crucial step towards more trustworthy and reliable clinical applications of LLMs, addressing key prerequisites for clinical application and fostering greater confidence in AI-assisted healthcare.

Juraj Vladika, Florian Matthes

In the digital age, people often turn to the Internet in search of medical advice and recommendations. With the increasing volume of online content, it has become difficult to distinguish reliable sources from misleading information. Similarly, millions of medical studies are published every year, making it challenging for researchers to keep track of the latest scientific findings. These evolving studies can reach differing conclusions, which is not reflected in traditional search tools. To address these challenges, we introduce MedSEBA, an interactive AI-powered system for synthesizing evidence-based answers to medical questions. It utilizes the power of Large Language Models to generate coherent and expressive answers, but grounds them in trustworthy medical studies dynamically retrieved from the research database PubMed. The answers consist of key points and arguments, which can be traced back to respective studies. Notably, the platform also provides an overview of the extent to which the most relevant studies support or refute the given medical claim, and a visualization of how the research consensus evolved through time. Our user study revealed that medical experts and lay users find the system usable and helpful, and the provided answers trustworthy and informative. This makes the system well-suited for both everyday health questions and advanced research insights.