Chenguang Wang

Veronica Chatrath, Bryan Zhu, George Pu et al. · cmu

Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably. We introduce CliniCARE-Bench (Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR), a benchmark for retrospective clinical audit: 25 clinician-validated scenarios instantiated as 750 patient-specific cases over real-patient-derived MIMIC-IV data. Systems investigate each case through a governed, logged tool environment for record retrieval, computation, and policy access, and return one of four verdicts---Yes, No, Indeterminate: Lack of Data, or Indeterminate: Medically Ambiguous---the last two separating missing evidence from residual medical ambiguity. Beyond verdict accuracy, we score patient-evidence and policy grounding, process adherence, calibrated abstention, reliability, and efficiency against case-level reference verdicts produced by independent multi-model adjudication and calibrated against Clinical Board review. Every retrieval, computation, and report is replayable, so the investigation trace is inspectable and scorable. To our knowledge, CliniCARE-Bench is the first deployment-oriented clinical-agent benchmark to jointly evaluate real longitudinal EHR investigation, claim-level evidence grounding, governing-policy use, process adherence, and calibrated abstention within a common patient-level adjudication framework. Across 16 agentic systems, four-way accuracy spans 65.3-76.1%, but raw accuracy overstates investigation quality. Defect-free accuracy, which credits a verdict only when correct and free of prohibited shortcuts, is 4.8-14.8 points lower and reorders the leaderboard.

Ming Li, Chenguang Wang, Xirui Li et al.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.