Can LLMs Follow Medical Expert Logic? A Benchmark for Hierarchical Logical Consistency in Risk-of-Bias Assessment
Updated 1 h ago · first seen 12 Sept 2026
paper_01M29X34HGKD6KTZRTVCA5N2AA
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
- T1 · 1 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11185
- T1 · 1 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 1 h ago
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine demands strict logical consistency, yet current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) prioritize superficial label matching over genuine reasoning. We introduce LogiMed-RoB, a benchmark grounded in Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 expert logic, comprising 860 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14,820 queries. It evaluates models under the Hierarchical Logical Consistency (HLC) framework across four dimensions: Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness. Experiments on 10 state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a catastrophic Error Compounding Effect: despite the top model reaching 98.88% Atomic Consistency, its end-to-end consistency collapses to 45.13%, with several open-weight architectures plummeting to nearly 0%. We further uncover a systematic evidence-reasoning gap: even when models retrieve high-quality evidence, they fail to deduce correct outcomes in 18.63-40.05% of cases, while Blind Guess Rates reach 48.28%. LogiMed-RoB demonstrates that high outcome accuracy can conceal critical reasoning flaws, underscoring the necessity of white-box logical verification for clinical deployment.
Authors 5
Haihong E, Jiayu Huang, Qianhui Ling, Zemin Kuang, Zichen Tang
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11185
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 1 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
1 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Jiayu Huang, Zichen Tang, Qianhui Ling
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history
Official pageofficial_url1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11185 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-based medicine demands strict logical consistency, yet current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) prioritize superficial label matching over genuine reasoning. We introduce LogiMed-RoB, a benchmark grounded in Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 expert logic, comprising 860 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14,820 queries. It evaluates models under the Hierarchical Logical Consistency (HLC) framework across four dimensions: Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness. Experiments on 10 state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a catastrophic Error Compounding Effect: despite the top model reaching 98.88% Atomic Consistency, its end-to-end consistency collapses to 45.13%, with several open-weight architectures plummeting to nearly 0%. We further uncover a systematic evidence-reasoning gap: even when models retrieve high-quality evidence, they fail to deduce correct outcomes in 18.63-40.05% of cases, while Blind Guess Rates reach 48.28%. LogiMed-RoB demonstrates that high outcome accuracy can conceal critical reasoning flaws, underscoring the necessity of white-box logical verification for clinical deployment. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| new | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
arXiv idarxiv_id1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2609.11185 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Categoriescategories1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs.AI | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
PDFpdf_url1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.11185 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Primary categoryprimary_category1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs.AI | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Publishedpublished_at1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 Sept 2026 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperCan LLMs Follow Medical Expert Logic? A Benchmark for Hierarchical Logical Consistency in Risk-of-Bias Assessment
New paper: Can LLMs Follow Medical Expert Logic? A Benchmark for Hierarchical Logical Consistency in Risk-of-Bias Assessment
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 1 h ago | 2 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.