arXiv subjects

William Bolton

Publications and source records attributed to William Bolton.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When Rubrics Fail: Hallucinations Reveal Blind Spots in Medical AI Evaluation

Hallucinations can undermine clinician trust in LLMs, making it important that evaluation methods capture clinically relevant errors. Rubric-based evaluation has become the leading approach for assessing LLMs in medicine, but it is unclear whether rubric scores reflect such errors. We first study this in a controlled setting using MedHallu, finding that more specific rubrics better distinguish correct from hallucinated responses. To test this systematically, we develop a taxonomy of medical hallucination types and a clinician-validated error-injection pipeline that creates matched correct and error-injected responses. Across HealthBench, HealthBench Professional, and LiveMedBench, our clinically relevant hallucinations are missed by rubrics, often leaving scores unchanged. We find that rubrics are most effective when explicitly checking facts, and are less effective for additional or unexpected errors they do not anticipate. A preliminary retrieval-based factuality check recovers some of the rubric-blind errors, suggesting a complementary approach. These findings reveal systematic blind spots in current medical evaluation of LLMs and suggest that rubric scores alone are insufficient to establish clinical reliability, potentially undermining clinician trust and confidence in clinical deployment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Adversarial Fast-Moving Real-World Domains as Test Beds for Benchmarking AI Scientist Capabilities

Benchmarking the ability of AI scientists to generate novel ideas is notoriously difficult. Existing benchmarks in this field have made progress in evaluating scientific reasoning and research replication, but often rely on synthetic tasks or retrospective targets, which may be confounded by prior exposure. We hypothesize that complex, adversarial, fast-moving real-world domains where expert practitioners independently generate observable outputs can provide a practical solution to fill this gap and evaluate the capabilities needed for AI scientists, including reasoning, novelty, and hypothesis formulation. We instantiate this framework in two structurally different domains, Formula 1 (F1), where models ideate around car design concepts for the 2026 season, and real pre-season innovations provide a ground truth, and Magic: The Gathering (MTG), where models propose decks from a recently updated card pool and are evaluated against 19 Pro Tour (PT) decklists. Across both domains, models produce plausible outputs, but few align with real-world expert solutions. In F1, the best model, GPT-5.2 matched 10 of 40 real innovations with 166 ideas proposed across runs. In MTG, the best deck from Gemini 3 Flash recovered 5 of 7 new-set cards from the third-place PT deck, and across all 108 decks, the cards models selected most often were also the cards most widely adopted by PT decks (Spearman $ρ= 0.74$, $p = 0.0003$). These results suggest that a key capability gap for AI scientists is not idea generation, but filtering, prioritization, and coherent novelty.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Learning Clinical-Trial Strategy: Offline Policy Training for Decision Agents

Clinical development is sequential decision-making under uncertainty, where a sponsor must plan a portfolio of experiments from heterogeneous evidence. We study this setting by framing oncology clinical development as an offline decision-making problem in which an agent predicts the next six-month trial portfolio of an oncology drug program from information available at the decision date. To support this, we construct a temporal dataset that combines 31.7k heterogeneous public data records, including trial registries, regulatory reviews, sponsor filings, utilization data, and epidemiology, into 881 offline decision episodes across 45 historical programs. We compare four offline objectives: behavioral cloning, reward-weighted behavioral cloning, learned-reward training, and value-based implicit Q-learning against four frontier LLM agents that share a common date-gated retrieval scaffold across held-out drug, sponsor, drug-class, and temporal splits. Models trained offline outperform the non-fine-tuned baselines, particularly in the post-August 2025 contamination-clean holdout. Reward-weighted behavioral cloning performs the best, obtaining 46.2% indication F1 and 14.2% strict F1 against 25.0% and 2.1%, respectively, for the best-performing tool agent on each metric. These results suggest that structured offline learning can teach agents to plan clinical experiments.

cs.AI↗