Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

This paper proposes an active learning method, constrained conformal evaluation (CCE), that iteratively narrows a candidate program set until all remaining programs are guaranteed observationally equivalent, reaching ground truth for 98% of

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

The abstract claims a new active learning technique, constrained conformal evaluation (tool SmartLabel), that finds the ground-truth program in 98% of benchmarks, but the delivered full text is a different paper, leaving the claim unverifiable.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The delivered full text is an unrelated medical paper, so the SmartLabel/CCE results are uninspectable; as submitted this is unverdictable, though the abstract alone suggests a possibly solid contribution. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.15750 v2 pith:Y7AQFQDR submitted 2025-08-21 cs.PL

Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis

Celeste Barnaby , Qiaochu Chen , Ramya Ramalingam , Osbert Bastani , Isil Dillig This is my paper
classification cs.PL
keywords active learningprogram synthesisneurosymbolicconformal evaluationneural mispredictionuser interactionprogram equivalenceSmartLabel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Active learning for program synthesis normally assumes a purely symbolic search space, so it breaks when the synthesized program contains neural components that can mispredict. This paper introduces constrained conformal evaluation (CCE), an evaluation strategy that treats neural mispredictions as bounded uncertainty and accounts for user feedback when pruning candidate programs. The method iteratively sharpens CCE until the remaining candidate programs are guaranteed to be observationally equivalent, meaning no two survivors differ in observable behavior. Implemented as SmartLabel, it recovers the ground-truth program for 98% of benchmarks across three neurosymbolic domains, with fewer than five user questions on average, compared with a 65% ceiling for previous active-learning techniques. If correct, this turns a neural synthesizer's silent wrong answers into a small, bounded number of targeted user interactions.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that neurosymbolic program synthesis can be made reliable under neural misprediction by evaluating candidate programs with a calibration-based method, CCE, rather than trusting the neural components' raw outputs. CCE reduces the candidate set by asking the user targeted questions while explicitly carrying a conservative bound on how badly the neural components can mispredict. Each round of feedback makes the constraint tighter, and the process stops only when every program left in the set is observationally equivalent to every other, i.e., they are guaranteed to behave the same. On three neurosymbolic benchmarks, SmartLabel, their implementation, achieved 98% ide

What carries the argument

Constrained conformal evaluation (CCE): a named evaluation strategy that scores candidate programs against user feedback while accounting for neural-component mispredictions through a calibrated uncertainty envelope. It does the work of turning raw neural scores into a conservative candidate set, and iterative refinement of CCE, adding user feedback each round, drives that set down to a single observational-equivalence class.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee rests on the premise that the calibration data used to size CCE's uncertainty envelope resembles the data that will actually be seen at synthesis time; if the neural components mispredict more on deployment inputs than their calibration envelope allows, the 'guaranteed' observational equivalence can fail.

What would settle it

Run SmartLabel on any benchmark from the paper with a systematic distribution shift — for example, calibrate on short programs but ask it to synthesize longer ones — and check whether the final candidate set ever contains two programs that are not observationally equivalent. If such a pair exists in even one run, the universal guarantee as stated is false, though the average success rate might still hold.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • User interaction cost becomes small and bounded: under five rounds on average, versus at best a 65% convergence rate for prior symbolic active learning.
  • The final candidate set is certified: all remaining programs are guaranteed observationally equivalent, so the returned program is not just a guess among alternatives.
  • Neural mispredictions no longer silently derail synthesis; CCE carries a conservative account of them through the search.
  • The method applies to neurosymbolic synthesis over multiple domains, suggesting it is not tied to one specific synthesizer or neural component.
  • It establishes a new comparison point: error-aware active learning for neural components is not only feasible but can outperform symbolic-only techniques on the same benchmarks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's guarantee is almost certainly powered by a conformal-prediction-style calibration assumption about the neural components' misprediction rates (e.g., exchangeability between calibration and deployment inputs); the abstract never states it, so the guarantee should be read as conditional on that assumption holding.
  • If the calibration premise holds, the same loop — conservative error estimates, human feedback, iterative tightening — could be lifted to other neural-augmented search problems (data-wrangling scripts, neural program repair), turning silent model mistakes into a bounded number of targeted user questions.
  • A direct test of the boundary: deliberately shift the distribution of program structure between calibration and deployment; if non-equivalent programs survive CCE, the guarantee degrades to a purely empirical success rate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript, as identified by its arXiv identifier and abstract, claims a new active learning technique, Constrained Conformal Evaluation (CCE), for neurosymbolic program synthesis, implemented in a tool called SmartLabel. The abstract states that SmartLabel identifies the ground truth program for 98% of benchmarks with under 5 rounds of user interaction on average, versus at most 65% for prior active learning techniques, and that CCE is iteratively refined until all remaining programs are guaranteed to be observationally equivalent. However, the delivered full text is an unrelated medical paper (arXiv:2508.15746v2) titled 'End-to-End Agentic RAG System Training for Traceable Diagnostic Reasoning,' which describes the Deep-DxSearch system for clinical diagnosis. This document contains no definition of CCE, no description of SmartLabel, no neurosymbolic synthesis method, no user-interaction experiments, and no benchmark comparison to active learning techniques. The central claims of the abstract are therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the claimed results were accompanied by the promised technical content, the paper could be significant: a query-efficient active learning method with a formal equivalence guarantee for neurosymbolic programs would address a real gap in the literature, and the reported 98% versus 65% comparison would be practically important. However, the manuscript as delivered provides no inspectable method, formal guarantee, or experimental protocol. The only substantive content is an unrelated medical diagnostics paper. Consequently, the significance of the claimed contribution cannot be assessed from this submission. No credit can be given for machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or falsifiable predictions because none are present.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full Text (entire document)] The submitted full text is not the paper described in the abstract. It is a medical AI paper on agentic RAG for diagnosis (Deep-DxSearch), with no connection to program synthesis, active learning, CCE, or SmartLabel. The abstract's central claims—the CCE equivalence guarantee, the 98% convergence rate, and the under-5-rounds interaction bound—have no corresponding definitions, derivations, or experimental support in this document. This is a load-bearing failure: the technical mechanism and empirical evaluation are entirely uninspectable.
  2. [Abstract, first sentence and final lines] The abstract asserts that CCE 'guarantee[s] that all remaining programs are observationally equivalent' and that SmartLabel 'identifies the ground truth program for 98% of the benchmarks.' These are strong quantitative and formal claims. In the absence of any accompanying text defining the program/query space, the user feedback model, the neural component error model, the calibration data, or the experimental benchmarks, these statements are unsupported assertions. The reader cannot verify whether the guarantee is a theorem, a heuristic, or an artifact of unspecified assumptions.
  3. [Full Text, §1–§5 and Extended Data] The delivered document's content (medical corpus construction, RL training, diagnostic benchmarks, physician-in-the-loop evaluation) does not address the stated topic. There is no section describing active learning for synthesis, no proof of equivalence, no comparison to prior active learning baselines, and no error bars or statistical analysis relevant to the 98% figure. Even if one generously treats the medical paper as a legitimate submission artifact, it does not provide any evidence bearing on the abstract's claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [General metadata] The manuscript title, author list, and content do not match the arXiv identifier or the abstract. This is a critical presentation issue that must be resolved before any technical review can occur.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No quotable circularity: the supplied full text does not contain the CCE/SmartLabel derivation, guarantee, or experiments claimed in the abstract.

full rationale

The submitted manuscript consists of an abstract for arXiv:2508.15750 ("Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis") followed by the full text of an unrelated medical paper (arXiv:2508.15746v2, "End-to-End Agentic RAG System Training for Traceable Diagnostic Reasoning"). None of the central machinery of the claimed paper is present: there is no definition of CCE, no description of the iterative refinement procedure, no statement of the calibration or coverage assumptions underlying the "guaranteed to be observationally equivalent" claim, and no experimental setup or results for SmartLabel (the 98% vs. at-most-65% comparison). Circularity analysis under the hard rules requires quoting the paper and exhibiting a specific reduction—e.g., a prediction that is equivalent to a fitted input by construction, or a load-bearing result imported solely from a self-citation. No such reduction can be exhibited because the derivation chain itself is absent. The mismatch between the abstract and the supplied full text is a severe verifiability and correctness concern, but it is not an observed circularity. Accordingly, the honest finding is no identifiable circularity; the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is usable; the delivered full text is an unrelated medical paper. The abstract introduces no obviously invented entities, but it is impossible to audit free parameters (e.g., conformal significance levels or slack in CCE) or hidden post-hoc choices because the methods and experiments sections are absent. The axioms listed are the load-bearing premises read off the abstract's guarantees.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Neural component mispredictions satisfy the statistical assumptions needed for conformal-style calibration (e.g., exchangeability, or a calibration set representative of deployment conditions).
    CCE 'accounts for neural mispredictions'; the abstract's guarantee of observational equivalence inherits coverage from this calibration. The delivered full text contains no CCE definition, so this premise is unauditable.
  • domain assumption The user provides correct, consistent answers to the active learning queries, and the query labels match the target program.
    The convergence claim (98% of benchmarks, under 5 rounds) presumes a faithful oracle; standard in active learning but unstated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The program hypothesis space is enumerable and observational equivalence between programs is decidable within it.
    The method 'iteratively makes CCE more precise until all remaining programs are guaranteed to be observationally equivalent,' which requires an enumerable candidate set and decidable equivalence checks; both are unstated in the abstract.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7AQFQDR

@misc{pith2026250815750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active Learning for Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7AQFQDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15750}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The goal of active learning for program synthesis is to synthesize the desired program by asking targeted questions that minimize user interaction. While prior work has explored active learning in the purely symbolic setting, such techniques are inadequate for the increasingly popular paradigm of neurosymbolic program synthesis, where the synthesized program incorporates neural components. When applied to the neurosymbolic setting, such techniques can -- and, in practice, do -- return an unintended program due to mispredictions of neural components. This paper proposes a new active learning technique that can handle the unique challenges posed by neural network mispredictions. Our approach is based upon a new evaluation strategy called constrained conformal evaluation (CCE), which accounts for neural mispredictions while taking into account user-provided feedback. Our proposed method iteratively makes CCE more precise until all remaining programs are guaranteed to be observationally equivalent. We have implemented this method in a tool called SmartLabel and experimentally evaluated it on three neurosymbolic domains. Our results demonstrate that SmartLabel identifies the ground truth program for 98% of the benchmarks, requiring under 5 rounds of user interaction on average. In contrast, prior techniques for active learning are only able to converge to the ground truth program for at most 65% of the benchmarks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Choose, Don't Label: Multiple-Choice Query Synthesis for Program Disambiguation

    cs.PL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Multiple-choice queries synthesized from Hoare triples enable more reliable identification of intended programs than labeled-example supervision in active learning for program disambiguation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

    Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023. 1, 4

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making.Nature medicine, 30(9):2613–2622, 2024

    Paul Hager, Friederike Jungmann, Robbie Holland, Kunal Bhagat, Inga Hubrecht, Manuel Knauer, Jakob Vielhauer, Marcus Makowski, Rickmer Braren, Georgios Kaissis, et al. Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making.Nature medicine, 30(9):2613–2622, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Quantifying the reasoning abilities of llms on clinical cases.Nature Communications, 16(1):9799, 2025

    Pengcheng Qiu, Chaoyi Wu, Shuyu Liu, Yanjie Fan, Weike Zhao, Zhuoxia Chen, Hongfei Gu, Chuanjin Peng, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, et al. Quantifying the reasoning abilities of llms on clinical cases.Nature Communications, 16(1):9799, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Baichuan-m2: Scaling medical capability with large verifier system

    Chengfeng Dou, Chong Liu, Fan Yang, Fei Li, Jiyuan Jia, Mingyang Chen, Qiang Ju, Shuai Wang, Shunya Dang, Tianpeng Li, et al. Baichuan-m2: Scaling medical capability with large verifier system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02208, 2025. 1, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [6]

    Evaluating clinical ai summaries with large language models as judges.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):640, 2025

    Emma Croxford, Yanjun Gao, Elliot First, Nicholas Pellegrino, Miranda Schnier, John Caskey, Madeline Oguss, Graham Wills, Guanhua Chen, Dmitriy Dligach, et al. Evaluating clinical ai summaries with large language models as judges.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):640, 2025. 1, 5

    work page 2025

  6. [7]

    Can gpt-4v (ision) serve medical applications? case studies on gpt-4v for multimodal medical diagnosis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09909, 2023

    Chaoyi Wu, Jiayu Lei, Qiaoyu Zheng, Weike Zhao, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Xiao Zhou, Ziheng Zhao, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, et al. Can gpt-4v (ision) serve medical applications? case studies on gpt-4v for multimodal medical diagnosis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09909, 2023. 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    A framework to assess clinical safety and hallucination rates of llms for medical text summarisation.NPJ Digital Medicine, 8, 2025

    Elham Asgari, Nina Montaña Brown, Magda Dubois, Saleh Khalil, Jasmine Balloch, Joshua Au Yeung, and Dominic Pimenta. A framework to assess clinical safety and hallucination rates of llms for medical text summarisation.NPJ Digital Medicine, 8, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  8. [9]

    Ehr-r1: A reasoning-enhanced foundational language model for electronic health record analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25628, 2025

    Yusheng Liao, Chaoyi Wu, Junwei Liu, Shuyang Jiang, Pengcheng Qiu, Haowen Wang, Yun Yue, Shuai Zhen, Jian Wang, Qianrui Fan, et al. Ehr-r1: A reasoning-enhanced foundational language model for electronic health record analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25628, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

  9. [10]

    A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis assistance.Nature medicine,

    Xiaohong Liu, Hao Liu, Guoxing Yang, Zeyu Jiang, Shuguang Cui, Zhaoze Zhang, Huan Wang, Liyuan Tao, Yongchang Sun, Zhu Song, Tianpei Hong, Jin Yang, Tianrun Gao, Jiangjiang Zhang, Xiaohu Li, Jing Zhang, Ye Sang, Zhao Yang, Kanmin Xue, Song Wu, Ping Zhang, Jian Yang, Chunli Song, and Guangyu Wang. A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis a...

    work page

  10. [11]

    The rise of agentic ai teammates in medicine.The Lancet, 405(10477):457,

    James Zou and Eric J Topol. The rise of agentic ai teammates in medicine.The Lancet, 405(10477):457,

    work page

  11. [12]

    Llm-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(12):1418–1420, 2024

    Jianing Qiu, Kyle Lam, Guohao Li, Amish Acharya, Tien Yin Wong, Ara Darzi, Wu Yuan, and Eric J Topol. Llm-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(12):1418–1420, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  12. [13]

    Towards conversational diagnostic ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654, 2024

    Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654, 2024. 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [14]

    Evolving diagnostic agents in a virtual clinical environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24654, 2025

    Pengcheng Qiu, Chaoyi Wu, Junwei Liu, Qiaoyu Zheng, Yusheng Liao, Haowen Wang, Yun Yue, Qianrui Fan, Shuai Zhen, Jian Wang, et al. Evolving diagnostic agents in a virtual clinical environment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24654, 2025. 1 |18

    arXiv 2025

  14. [15]

    Introducing ChatGPT Health, oct 2024

    OpenAI. Introducing ChatGPT Health, oct 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-26. 1

    work page 2024

  15. [16]

    Advancing Claude in healthcare and the life sciences, jan 2026

    Anthropic. Advancing Claude in healthcare and the life sciences, jan 2026. Accessed: 2026-01-26. 1

    work page 2026

  16. [17]

    The leading medical information platform, 2026

    OpenEvidence. The leading medical information platform, 2026. Accessed: 2026-01-26. 1

    work page 2026

  17. [18]

    Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.jama, 268(17):2420–2425, 1992

    Gordon Guyatt, John Cairns, David Churchill, Deborah Cook, Brian Haynes, Jack Hirsh, Jan Irvine, Mark Levine, Mitchell Levine, Jim Nishikawa, et al. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.jama, 268(17):2420–2425, 1992. 1

    work page 1992

  18. [19]

    Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice.JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association-International Edition, 287(11):1463, 2002

    Gordon Guyatt, Drummond Rennie, and S Satya-Murti. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice.JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association-International Edition, 287(11):1463, 2002. 1

    work page 2002

  19. [20]

    Varacallo

    Steven Tenny and Matthew A. Varacallo. Evidence-based medicine. InStatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), jan 2025. Updated 2024 Sep 10. 1

    work page 2025

  20. [21]

    Benchmark evaluation of deepseek large language models in clinical decision-making

    Sarah Sandmann, Stefan Hegselmann, Michael Fujarski, Lucas Bickmann, Benjamin Wild, Roland Eils, and Julian Varghese. Benchmark evaluation of deepseek large language models in clinical decision-making. Nature Medicine, pages 1–1, 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  21. [22]

    Towards reliable medical question answering: Techniques and challenges in mitigating hallucinations in language models.ArXiv, abs/2408.13808, 2024

    Duy Khoa Pham and Quoc Bao Vo. Towards reliable medical question answering: Techniques and challenges in mitigating hallucinations in language models.ArXiv, abs/2408.13808, 2024. 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    MMedAgent: Learning to use medical tools with multi-modal agent

    Binxu Li, Tiankai Yan, Yuanting Pan, Jie Luo, Ruiyang Ji, Jiayuan Ding, Zhe Xu, Shilong Liu, Haoyu Dong, Zihao Lin, and Yixin Wang. MMedAgent: Learning to use medical tools with multi-modal agent. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 8745–8760, Miami, Flo...

    work page 2024

  23. [24]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2(1), 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2(1), 2023. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine

    Guangzhi Xiong, Qiao Jin, Zhiyong Lu, and Aidong Zhang. Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, pages 6233–6251,

    work page 2024

  25. [26]

    Agenticretrieval-augmentedgeneration: A survey on agentic rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136, 2025

    AditiSingh, AbulEhtesham, SaketKumar, andTalaTalaeiKhoei. Agenticretrieval-augmentedgeneration: A survey on agentic rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136, 2025. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Medical graph rag: Towards safe medical large language model via graph retrieval-augmented generation

    Junde Wu, Jiayuan Zhu, Yunli Qi, Jingkun Chen, Min Xu, Filippo Menolascina, and Vicente Grau. Medical graph rag: Towards safe medical large language model via graph retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04187, 2024. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Mmed-rag: Versatile multimodal rag system for medical vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13085, 2024

    Peng Xia, Kangyu Zhu, Haoran Li, Tianze Wang, Weijia Shi, Sheng Wang, Linjun Zhang, James Zou, and Huaxiu Yao. Mmed-rag: Versatile multimodal rag system for medical vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13085, 2024. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [29]

    Ho, Chao Zhang, and Carl Yang

    Ran Xu, Wenqi Shi, Yue Yu, Yuchen Zhuang, Yanqiao Zhu, May Dongmei Wang, Joyce C. Ho, Chao Zhang, and Carl Yang. Bmretriever: Tuning large language models as better biomedical text retrievers. ArXiv, abs/2404.18443, 2024. 2, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Graph-based retriever captures the long tail of biomedical knowledge.ArXiv, abs/2402.12352, 2024

    Julien Delile, Srayanta Mukherjee, Anton Van Pamel, and Leonid Zhukov. Graph-based retriever captures the long tail of biomedical knowledge.ArXiv, abs/2402.12352, 2024. 2, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Optimization of hepatological clinical guidelines interpretation by large language models: a retrieval augmented generation-based framework.NPJ digital medicine, 7(1):102, 2024

    Simone Kresevic, Mauro Giuffrè, Milos Ajcevic, Agostino Accardo, Lory S Crocè, and Dennis L Shung. Optimization of hepatological clinical guidelines interpretation by large language models: a retrieval augmented generation-based framework.NPJ digital medicine, 7(1):102, 2024. 2 |19

    work page 2024

  31. [32]

    Rare disease patient matchmaking: development and outcomes of an internet case-finding strategy in the undiagnosed diseases network

    Kimberly LeBlanc, Emily Glanton, Anna Nagy, Jorick Bater, Tala Berro, Molly A McGuinness, Courtney Studwell, Undiagnosed Diseases Network, and Matthew Might. Rare disease patient matchmaking: development and outcomes of an internet case-finding strategy in the undiagnosed diseases network. Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 16(1):210, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  32. [33]

    An evaluation framework for clinical use of large language models in patient interaction tasks.Nature medicine, 31(1):77–86, 2025

    Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A Tran, Daniel I Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Leandra A Barnes, Hong-Yu Zhou, Zhuo Ran Cai, Eliezer M Van Allen, David Kim, et al. An evaluation framework for clinical use of large language models in patient interaction tasks.Nature medicine, 31(1):77–86, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276,

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [35]

    Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 645(8081):633–638, 2025. 2, 4, 5

    work page 2025

  35. [36]

    Meditron-70b: Scaling medical pretraining for large language models.ArXiv, abs/2311.16079, 2023

    Zeming Chen, Alejandro Hern’andez Cano, Angelika Romanou, Antoine Bonnet, Kyle Matoba, Francesco Salvi, Matteo Pagliardini, Simin Fan, Andreas Kopf, Amirkeivan Mohtashami, Alexandre Sallinen, Alireza Sakhaeirad, Vinitra Swamy, Igor Krawczuk, Deniz Bayazit, Axel Marmet, Syrielle Montariol, Mary-Anne Hartley, Martin Jaggi, and Antoine Bosselut. Meditron-70b...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Medgemma technical report

    Andrew Sellergren, Sahar Kazemzadeh, Tiam Jaroensri, Atilla Kiraly, Madeleine Traverse, Timo Kohlberger, Shawn Xu, Fayaz Jamil, Cían Hughes, Charles Lau, et al. Medgemma technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201, 2025. 2, 4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models.NPJ digital medicine, 8(1):159, 2025

    Xi Chen, Huahui Yi, Mingke You, WeiZhi Liu, Li Wang, Hairui Li, Xue Zhang, Yingman Guo, Lei Fan, Gang Chen, et al. Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models.NPJ digital medicine, 8(1):159, 2025. 2, 5

    work page 2025

  38. [39]

    Cod, towards an interpretable medical agent using chain of diagnosis

    Junying Chen, Chi Gui, Anningzhe Gao, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Xiang Wan, and Benyou Wang. Cod, towards an interpretable medical agent using chain of diagnosis. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 14345–14368, 2025. 2, 5

    work page 2025

  39. [40]

    Doctoragent-rl: A multi-agent collaborative reinforcement learning system for multi-turn clinical dialogue.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19630, 2025

    Yichun Feng, Jiawei Wang, Lu Zhou, and Yixue Li. Doctoragent-rl: A multi-agent collaborative reinforcement learning system for multi-turn clinical dialogue.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19630, 2025. 2, 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based guideline for llms.NPJ digital medicine, 7(1):41, 2024

    Li Wang, Xi Chen, XiangWen Deng, Hao Wen, MingKe You, WeiZhi Liu, Qi Li, and Jian Li. Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based guideline for llms.NPJ digital medicine, 7(1):41, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  41. [42]

    Evaluation and practical application of prompt-driven chatgpts for emr generation

    Hanlin Ding, Wenjie Xia, Yujia Zhou, Lei Wei, Yipeng Feng, Zi Wang, Xuming Song, Rutao Li, Qixing Mao, Bing Chen, et al. Evaluation and practical application of prompt-driven chatgpts for emr generation. npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):77, 2025. 4

    work page 2025

  42. [43]

    Rarebench: Can llms serve as rare diseases specialists?Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024

    Xuanzhong Chen, Xiaohao Mao, Qihan Guo, Lun Wang, Shuyang Zhang, and Ting Chen. Rarebench: Can llms serve as rare diseases specialists?Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2024. 4, 5, 14, 29

    work page 2024

  43. [44]

    Towards evaluating and building versatile large language models for medicine.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):58, 2025

    Chaoyi Wu, Pengcheng Qiu, Jinxin Liu, Hongfei Gu, Na Li, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. Towards evaluating and building versatile large language models for medicine.npj Digital Medicine, 8(1):58, 2025. 4

    work page 2025

  44. [45]

    Pmc-llama: toward building open-source language models for medicine.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 31(9):1833–1843, 2024

    Chaoyi Wu, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Weidi Xie, and Yanfeng Wang. Pmc-llama: toward building open-source language models for medicine.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 31(9):1833–1843, 2024. 4 |20

    work page 2024

  45. [46]

    Qwen2.5 technical report.ArXiv, abs/2412.15115, 2024

    Qwen An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxin Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2407, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2407, 2024. 4

    2024

  47. [48]

    Comeau, Lana Yeganova, John Wilbur, and Zhiyong Lu

    Qiao Jin, Won Kim, Qingyu Chen, Donald C. Comeau, Lana Yeganova, John Wilbur, and Zhiyong Lu. Biocpt: Contrastive pre-trained transformers with large-scale pubmed search logs for zero-shot biomedical information retrieval.Bioinformatics, 39 11, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  48. [49]

    Alistair E. W. Johnson, Lucas Bulgarelli, Lu Shen, Alvin Gayles, Ayad Shammout, Steven Horng, Tom J. Pollard, Benjamin Moody, Brian Gow, Li wei H. Lehman, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G. Mark. Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset.Scientific Data, 10, 2023. 5, 14, 27

    work page 2023

  49. [50]

    Pmc-patients: A large-scale dataset of patient notes and relations extracted from case reports in pubmed central.ArXiv, abs/2202.13876, 2022

    Zhengyun Zhao, Qiao Jin, and Sheng Yu. Pmc-patients: A large-scale dataset of patient notes and relations extracted from case reports in pubmed central.ArXiv, abs/2202.13876, 2022. 5, 14, 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [51]

    Meddialog: A large-scale medical dialogue dataset.ArXiv, abs/2004.03329, 2020

    Shu Chen, Zeqian Ju, Xiangyu Dong, Hongchao Fang, Sicheng Wang, Yue Yang, Jiaqi Zeng, Ruisi Zhang, Ruoyu Zhang, Meng Zhou, Penghui Zhu, and Pengtao Xie. Meddialog: A large-scale medical dialogue dataset.ArXiv, abs/2004.03329, 2020. 5, 14, 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  51. [52]

    A Structured Dataset of Disease-Symptom Associations to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy

    Abdullah Al Shafi, Rowzatul Zannat, Abdul Muntakim, and Mahmudul Hasan. A structured dataset of disease-symptom associations to improve diagnostic accuracy.ArXiv, abs/2506.13610, 2025. 5, 14, 16, 29

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning.ArXiv, abs/2506.20430, 2025

    Weike Zhao, Chaoyi Wu, Yanjie Fan, Xiaoman Zhang, Pengcheng Qiu, Yuze Sun, Xiao Zhou, Yanfeng Wang, Ya Zhang, Yongguo Yu, Kun Sun, and Weidi Xie. An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning.ArXiv, abs/2506.20430, 2025. 5, 14, 16, 29

    arXiv 2025

  53. [54]

    Disentanglement of single-cell data with biolord

    Zoe Piran, Niv Cohen, Yedid Hoshen, and Mor Nitzan. Disentanglement of single-cell data with biolord. Nature Biotechnology, 42(11):1678–1683, 2024. 14

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    Medlineplus: building and maintaining the national library of medicine’s consumer health web service.Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88 1:11–7,

    Naomi Miller, Eve-Marie Lacroix, and Joyce Backus. Medlineplus: building and maintaining the national library of medicine’s consumer health web service.Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88 1:11–7,

    work page

  55. [2000]

    low-quality

    15 |21 5 Extended Data Extended Data Figure 1| Data statistics. a.Left: Overview of items and their relationships in the disease guideline. Middle: ICD coverage for common diseases and Orpha coverage for rare diseases. Right: Distribution of disease information sources, highlighting major public resources.b.Top: Summary statistics of patient records. Bott...

    work page 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.