BioDivergence: A Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Hidden Contextual Contradictions in Biomedical Abstracts
Quick Answer
BioDivergence introduces a novel evaluation framework for contextual contradictions in biomedical abstracts, featuring a six-class conflict taxonomy and a silver benchmark of 11,865 claim pairs.
Quick Take
The Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 model achieved 0.5523 accuracy on the primary test set, highlighting significant performance differences in article-disjoint settings.
Key Points
- BioDivergence features a 13-axis divergence ontology for nuanced evaluation.
- The framework distinguishes between contextual divergence and direct contradiction.
- Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 achieved 0.3894 contextual-F1 on the primary test set.
- The silver benchmark includes claim pairs from five biomedical domains.
- Results indicate a 12-point drop in accuracy under article-disjoint conditions.
Paper Resources
Source Excerpt
arXiv:2606. 11208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biomedical findings often seem to conflict across studies, but many of these differences are context-dependent rather than true contradictions. Variations in cohort, geography, assay protocol, disease subtype, and clinical setting can make both claims locally valid. Existing NLI and scientific claim-verification benchmarks reduce such cases to entailment, contradiction, or neutral, failing to capture the contextual structure behind divergence. …
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →TriAgent: Divergence-Aware Committees for Cost-Efficient Financial Sentiment Analysis
TriAgent introduces a cost-efficient multi-agent system for financial sentiment analysis, combining VADER, FinBERT, and Qwen2.5. It achieves an F1 score of ~0.87 with significant savings of $9.3M/year at a 10M-user scale compared to GPT-4o-mini, while also detecting hallucinations with an AUC of 0.90.