Kaela Kokkas, Hairong Wang, Richard Klein +11q-bio.QM cs.AI cs.CL
Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.
Search agents now answer questions that take dozens of searches to settle, yet how such an agent reads a page has drawn far less attention than how it finds one. Nearly all of them use one of two document interfaces, and both tie a page to the moment it is opened. \emph{Visit-and-read} injects a reading of the page into the message history at fetch time, fixing that reading before the agent knows which fact it will need. Stateful \emph{browsing} instead extracts on demand from the page in hand, but holds one page at a time and releases it as soon as the agent opens another. Either way, a page that turns out to matter many turns later has to be fetched and rendered into context all over again. We propose \textbf{Fetch-then-Explore}, which separates page selection from evidence extraction and keeps what it selects: pages are recorded in a per-question workspace on the filesystem rather than the context window or a transient session, and evidence is pulled from them on demand later. Selection becomes almost free, extraction can wait until the agent knows what to look for and be repeated as its hypothesis sharpens, and pages are not released when the agent moves on, so evidence accumulates across the trajectory. In a unified ReAct harness with fixed search, we compare Fetch-then-Explore against snippet-only, visit-and-read, and browsing baselines on two open-web benchmarks, BrowseComp and WideSearch, across three agent backbones. It leads BrowseComp accuracy at every backbone and generally matches or exceeds the baselines on WideSearch, and a behavioral analysis traces the gains to the workspace's defining move: returning to a page after leaving it, which it does far more than any transient interface, so evidence missed on a first pass can still be recovered later.
Guilherme C. Oliveira, Stephanie Fong, Zimu Wang +10cs.CL cs.AI cs.HC
Progress on AI for psychosis-risk assessment is limited by a data-access bottleneck. Real clinical interviews are difficult to share because of privacy, governance, and consent constraints. We present AnchorSIPS, a synthetic dataset of 10K structured psychosis-risk interviews with transcript-grounded measurement targets. Each interview is modeled on Mini-SIPS, a clinician-administered psychosis-risk interview. It captures history, 24 symptom questions, follow-up evidence for items the patient affirms, decisions about delusion-like symptoms (unusual beliefs), hallucination-like symptoms (unusual perceptions), and disorganized communication, exclusion of clear psychotic-level symptoms ("frank psychosis"), and a final attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS) diagnosis, a high-risk state of milder or early psychotic symptoms. The APS diagnosis is not a standalone label. It depends on earlier endorsements, supporting follow-up details, symptom-class decisions, and the frank-psychosis check. Every intermediate decision is anchored to its supporting transcript turns. AnchorSIPS is generated by a plan-then-realize pipeline. A hidden case sheet specifies the patient's clinical state, a deterministic planner fixes the interview structure, and an LLM realizes only the patient utterances under validation and bounded repair. Fixing labels and structure before generation avoids the inter-turn inconsistencies typical of multi-turn LLM dialogue. Across seven LLM baselines, models recover coarse decisions but fail to extract follow-up details or cite supporting transcript turns, so final-label performance overstates interview competence. AnchorSIPS is intended for research on evidence extraction, transcript-grounded measurement, and uncertainty under partial disclosure.