Abstract
Publication count is not study count. A model can identify shared trial lineage correctly in a direct task yet over-credit a second publication from the same trial when aggregating evidence. We evaluate this behavior in medical LLM verification using 14 source-audited clinical families and five model conditions. The families span provenance, clinical applicability, result direction, and composition; the provenance families provide the direct lineage tests. Recognition and aggregation are separate stateless calls, and repeated calls assess within-input stability. Across all three original provenance families, GPT-5.5 identifies the independent update in 10/10 recognition calls per family but over-credits the same-trial report in 5/5 separate aggregation calls per family. Selected Qwen3-4B and Ministral-3-8B conditions show the same cross-task contrast. A study-grouping instruction reduces GPT-5.5 over-credit from 4/5 to 0/5 in each later pure-provenance family. Other model conditions show mixed behavior, and rejected outputs limit several comparisons. The results identify a behavioral gap between elicited lineage recognition and evidence aggregation. The code and data artifacts are available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23721
