arXiv subjects

Xuguang Ai

Publications and source records attributed to Xuguang Ai.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Toward Federated Large Language Models in Medicine: A Parameter-Efficient Framework for Privacy-Preserving, Multi-Institutional Adaptation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adapted for medical applications, but most are trained using data from a single institution because privacy and governance constraints prevent multi-institutional data sharing. As a result, these models often generalize poorly across heterogeneous healthcare systems. We address this gap by introducing Fed-MedLoRA and Fed-MedLoRA+, a parameter-efficient federated framework for collaborative LLM adaptation across healthcare institutions. Fed-MedLoRA transmits only low-rank adapters rather than full model weights, reducing communication overhead. We also evaluate a privacy-preserving variant that applies Gaussian perturbation to transmitted adapter updates. Fed-MedLoRA+ further incorporates adaptive aggregation to better address cross-site heterogeneity in patient populations, annotation practices, and disease distributions. We evaluate the framework on clinical information extraction across five independent patient cohorts totaling 42,198 entities and 41,570 relations, and compare it with zero-shot and fine-tuned LLMs, domain-specific BERT models, and federated baselines. Across all settings, the proposed methods consistently improve extraction performance and generalize better to heterogeneous cohorts. In a real-world case study using clinical notes from the Yale New Haven Health System, the framework demonstrates strong performance under low-resource new-site deployment. These results suggest that federated, parameter-efficient LLM adaptation is feasible, scalable, and effective for multi-institutional clinical deployment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Memorization in Large Language Models in Medicine: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Implications

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in medicine, with many studies adapting them through continued pre-training or fine-tuning on medical data to enhance domain-specific accuracy and safety. However, a key open question remains: to what extent do LLMs memorize medical training data. Memorization can be beneficial when it enables LLMs to retain valuable medical knowledge during domain adaptation. Yet, it also raises concerns. LLMs may inadvertently reproduce sensitive clinical content (e.g., patient-specific details), and excessive memorization may reduce model generalizability, increasing risks of misdiagnosis and making unwarranted recommendations. These risks are further amplified by the generative nature of LLMs, which can not only surface memorized content but also produce overconfident, misleading outputs that may hinder clinical adoption. In this work, we present a study on memorization of LLMs in medicine, assessing its prevalence (how frequently it occurs), characteristics (what is memorized), volume (how much content is memorized), and potential downstream impacts (how memorization may affect medical applications). We systematically analyze common adaptation scenarios: (1) continued pretraining on medical corpora, (2) fine-tuning on standard medical benchmarks, and (3) fine-tuning on real-world clinical data, including over 13,000 unique inpatient records from Yale New Haven Health System. The results demonstrate that memorization is prevalent across all adaptation scenarios and significantly higher than that reported in the general domain. Moreover, memorization has distinct characteristics during continued pre-training and fine-tuning, and it is persistent: up to 87% of content memorized during continued pre-training remains after fine-tuning on new medical tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

MedPMC: A Systematic Framework for Scaling High-Fidelity Medical Multimodal Data for Foundation Models

Medicine is inherently multimodal, requiring clinicians to synthesize information across diverse data streams. Yet the development of multimodal foundation models is constrained by limited access to large-scale, high-quality clinical data. Although PubMed Central (PMC) offers a complementary source of expert-authored image-text data, existing PMC-derived resources remain limited in fidelity, reproducibility, and clinical validation. We introduce MedPMC, an automated, continuously updatable framework that transforms permissively licensed literature into high-fidelity infrastructure for medical multimodal models. Applied to 6.1 million PMC articles, MedPMC curated 11 million medical image-text pairs. Component evaluations showed strong performance for initial screening (F1 = 93.2), multi-panel figure detection (F1 = 96.5), figure separation (mAP = 89.8), caption separation and alignment (F1 = 81.4; ROUGE-L = 85.3), and medical figure classification (F1 = 96.5). Manual review by five annotators, three with medical training, found 95.3% of MedPMC images medically relevant, versus 19.7% in a prior PMC-derived dataset. Across 26 benchmarks spanning 11 specialties, a MedPMC-trained CLIP-style model improved average zero-shot AUC by 7.1 percentage points over the strongest architecture-matched biomedical CLIP baseline despite using fewer than half as many image-text pairs. As the vision encoder in a multimodal large language model, it improved medical visual question-answering by 1.9 and 16.9 percentage points across two benchmarks. In 10,524 Yale New Haven Health System dermatology photographs, it improved morphology-to-image retrieval Recall@5 by 11.7 percentage points. These findings show that high-fidelity literature curation strengthens medical multimodal foundation models across benchmark and clinical settings. We publicly release the framework, corpus, benchmarks, and pretrained models.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

AUDITFLOW: Executable Symbolic Environments for Structured Financial Reporting Verification

Structured financial audit verification is difficult for language-model agents because correctness depends on structured evidence rather than text alone. A model must link reported facts to taxonomy concepts, traverse calculation or dimensional relations, and recompute expected values before applying an audit rule. We propose AuditFlow, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework that separates adaptive search from deterministic verification. AuditFlow builds a symbolic environment from a static US-GAAP taxonomy graph and a dynamic XBRL filing graph, and exposes it through typed tools for fact retrieval, taxonomy traversal, numerical checking, and rule evaluation. Two junior auditors inspect each case from regulatory and evidentiary views, while a senior auditor resolves disagreements and can request further investigation. The final reports are fused through evidential aggregation to produce an audit verdict, expected value, evidence trail, and trustworthiness score. On a FinAuditing-derived FinMR sample, AuditFlow reaches 82.09% joint audit accuracy under GPT-5.5, outperforming the strongest baseline by 14.93 points. Removing deterministic checks drops accuracy to 17.91%, showing that the symbolic environment performs the verification step that the model cannot reliably replace.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Herculean: An Agentic Benchmark for Financial Intelligence

As AI agents improve, the central question is no longer whether they can solve isolated well-defined financial tasks, but whether they can reliably carry out financial professional work. Existing financial benchmarks offer only a partial view of this ability, as they primarily evaluate static competencies such as question answering, retrieval, summarization, and classification. We introduce Herculean, the first skilled benchmark for agentic financial intelligence spanning four representative workflows, including Trading, Hedging, Market Insights, and Auditing. Each workflow is instantiated as a standardized MCP-based skill environment with its own tools, interaction dynamics, constraints, and success criteria, enabling consistent end-to-end assessment of heterogeneous agent systems. Across frontier agents, we find agents perform relatively well on Trading and Market Insights, but struggle substantially on Hedging and Auditing, where long-horizon coordination, state consistency, and structured verification are critical. Overall, our results point to a key gap in current agents in turning financial reasoning into dependable workflow execution in high-stakes financial workflows.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Are Multimodal LLMs Ready for Clinical Dermatology? A Real-World Evaluation in Dermatology

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promise on publicly available dermatology benchmarks. However, benchmark performance may not generalize to real-world dermatologic decision-making. To quantify this benchmark-to-bedside gap, we evaluated four open-weight MLLMs (InternVL-Chat v1.5, LLaVA-Med v1.5, SkinGPT4 and MedGemma-4B-Instruct) and one commercial MLLM (GPT-4.1) across three publicly available dermatology datasets and a retrospective multi-site hospital-based dermatology consultation cohort comprising 5,811 cases and 46,405 clinical images. Models were evaluated on two clinically relevant tasks: differential diagnosis generation and severity-based triage. Diagnostic performance was modest on public datasets and declined substantially in the real-world cohort. On public benchmarks, top-3 diagnostic accuracy reached 26.55% for the best open-weight model and 42.25% for GPT-4.1. On real-world consultation cases using images alone, top-3 diagnostic accuracy fell to 1.50%-13.35% among open-weight models and 24.65% for GPT-4.1. Incorporating clinical context improved performance across all models, increasing top-3 diagnostic accuracy up to 28.75% among open-weight models and 38.93% for GPT-4.1. However, model outputs were highly sensitive to incomplete or erroneous consultation context. For severity-based triage, models achieved moderate sensitivity (above 60%), suggesting potential utility for screening but insufficient reliability for clinical deployment. These findings demonstrate that benchmark performance substantially overestimates the real-world clinical capability of current dermatology MLLMs.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

VOLMO: Versatile and Open Large Models for Ophthalmology

Vision impairment affects millions globally, and early detection is critical to preventing irreversible vision loss. Ophthalmology workflows require clinicians to integrate medical images, structured clinical data, and free-text notes to determine disease severity and management, which is time-consuming and burdensome. Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) show promise, but existing general and medical MLLMs perform poorly in ophthalmology, and few ophthalmology-specific MLLMs are openly available. We present VOLMO (Versatile and Open Large Models for Ophthalmology), a model-agnostic, data-open framework for developing ophthalmology-specific MLLMs. VOLMO includes three stages: ophthalmology knowledge pretraining on 86,965 image-text pairs from 26,569 articles across 82 journals; domain task fine-tuning on 26,929 annotated instances spanning 12 eye conditions for disease screening and severity classification; and multi-step clinical reasoning on 913 patient case reports for assessment, planning, and follow-up care. Using this framework, we trained a compact 2B-parameter MLLM and compared it with strong baselines, including InternVL-2B, LLaVA-Med-7B, MedGemma-4B, MedGemma-27B, and RETFound. We evaluated these models on image description generation, disease screening and staging classification, and assessment-and-management generation, with additional manual review by two healthcare professionals and external validation on three independent cohorts for age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. Across settings, VOLMO-2B consistently outperformed baselines, achieving stronger image description performance, an average F1 of 87.4% across 12 eye conditions, and higher scores in external validation.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

EHRNavigator: A Multi-Agent System for Patient-Level Clinical Question Answering over Heterogeneous Electronic Health Records

Clinical decision-making increasingly relies on timely and context-aware access to patient information within Electronic Health Records (EHRs), yet most existing natural language question-answering (QA) systems are evaluated solely on benchmark datasets, limiting their practical relevance. To overcome this limitation, we introduce EHRNavigator, a multi-agent framework that harnesses AI agents to perform patient-level question answering across heterogeneous and multimodal EHR data. We assessed its performance using both public benchmark and institutional datasets under realistic hospital conditions characterized by diverse schemas, temporal reasoning demands, and multimodal evidence integration. Through quantitative evaluation and clinician-validated chart review, EHRNavigator demonstrated strong generalization, achieving 86% accuracy on real-world cases while maintaining clinically acceptable response times. Overall, these findings confirm that EHRNavigator effectively bridges the gap between benchmark evaluation and clinical deployment, offering a robust, adaptive, and efficient solution for real-world EHR question answering.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

A Benchmark for End-to-End Zero-Shot Biomedical Relation Extraction with LLMs: Experiments with OpenAI Models

Extracting relations from scientific literature is a fundamental task in biomedical NLP because entities and relations among them drive hypothesis generation and knowledge discovery. As literature grows rapidly, relation extraction (RE) is indispensable to curate knowledge graphs to be used as computable structured and symbolic representations. With the rise of LLMs, it is pertinent to examine if it is better to skip tailoring supervised RE methods, save annotation burden, and just use zero shot RE (ZSRE) via LLM API calls. In this paper, we propose a benchmark with seven biomedical RE datasets with interesting characteristics and evaluate three Open AI models (GPT-4, o1, and GPT-OSS-120B) for end-to-end ZSRE. We show that LLM-based ZSRE is inching closer to supervised methods in performances on some datasets but still struggles on complex inputs expressing multiple relations with different predicates. Our error analysis reveals scope for improvements.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation

The rising prevalence of eye diseases poses a growing public health burden. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making. However, few have been tailored for ophthalmology, and most evaluations focus mainly on knowledge-based QA without clinically relevant benchmarks or real-world validation. Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process: (1) instruction tuning on 200,000 samples from clinical guidelines, textbooks, and case reports to enhance reasoning and task-following, and (2) reinforcement learning with ~30,000 preference labels to enhance accuracy and informativeness. LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning. It outperformed all seven baselines (all p < 0.004), exceeding GPT-4o by 3.32% (absolute ROUGE-L gain). It was further evaluated on three downstream tasks using deidentified patient data, reviewed by clinicians. In patient QA, LEME received the highest ratings from attending clinicians in 3 out of 4 criteria, with scores of 4.67 for factuality, 4.77 for specificity, 4.79 for completeness, and 4.88 for safety (1-5 scale). Its completeness score surpassed that of expert-written answers (4.79 vs. 4.56; p = 0.015). In visual acuity extraction, LEME achieved the highest F1, outperforming LLaMA-3 by 14.1% and Eye-LLaMA by 59.0%. In a pilot evaluation on assessment and treatment planning for diabetic retinopathy, AMD, and glaucoma, LEME received scores of 4.36 for factuality, 4.55 for specificity, 4.42 for completeness, and 4.36 for safety, approaching attending-level performance. All models, data, and code will be released to support further development and clinical translation, laying the groundwork for improved efficiency and patient care

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Comparison of pipeline, sequence-to-sequence, and GPT models for end-to-end relation extraction: experiments with the rare disease use-case

End-to-end relation extraction (E2ERE) is an important and realistic application of natural language processing (NLP) in biomedicine. In this paper, we aim to compare three prevailing paradigms for E2ERE using a complex dataset focused on rare diseases involving discontinuous and nested entities. We use the RareDis information extraction dataset to evaluate three competing approaches (for E2ERE): NER $\rightarrow$ RE pipelines, joint sequence to sequence models, and generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) models. We use comparable state-of-the-art models and best practices for each of these approaches and conduct error analyses to assess their failure modes. Our findings reveal that pipeline models are still the best, while sequence-to-sequence models are not far behind; GPT models with eight times as many parameters are worse than even sequence-to-sequence models and lose to pipeline models by over 10 F1 points. Partial matches and discontinuous entities caused many NER errors contributing to lower overall E2E performances. We also verify these findings on a second E2ERE dataset for chemical-protein interactions. Although generative LM-based methods are more suitable for zero-shot settings, when training data is available, our results show that it is better to work with more conventional models trained and tailored for E2ERE. More innovative methods are needed to marry the best of the both worlds from smaller encoder-decoder pipeline models and the larger GPT models to improve E2ERE. As of now, we see that well designed pipeline models offer substantial performance gains at a lower cost and carbon footprint for E2ERE. Our contribution is also the first to conduct E2ERE for the RareDis dataset.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology (BELO) for Ophthalmological Knowledge and Reasoning

Current benchmarks evaluating large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology are limited in scope and disproportionately prioritise accuracy. We introduce BELO (BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology), a standardized and comprehensive evaluation benchmark developed through multiple rounds of expert checking by 13 ophthalmologists. BELO assesses ophthalmology-related clinical accuracy and reasoning quality. Using keyword matching and a fine-tuned PubMedBERT model, we curated ophthalmology-specific multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) from diverse medical datasets (BCSC, MedMCQA, MedQA, BioASQ, and PubMedQA). The dataset underwent multiple rounds of expert checking. Duplicate and substandard questions were systematically removed. Ten ophthalmologists refined the explanations of each MCQ's correct answer. This was further adjudicated by three senior ophthalmologists. To illustrate BELO's utility, we evaluated six LLMs (OpenAI o1, o3-mini, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Llama-3-8B, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using accuracy, macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore, METEOR, and AlignScore). In a further evaluation involving human experts, two ophthalmologists qualitatively reviewed 50 randomly selected outputs for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and completeness. BELO consists of 900 high-quality, expert-reviewed questions aggregated from five sources: BCSC (260), BioASQ (10), MedMCQA (572), MedQA (40), and PubMedQA (18). A public leaderboard has been established to promote transparent evaluation and reporting. Importantly, the BELO dataset will remain a hold-out, evaluation-only benchmark to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons of future models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking large language models for biomedical natural language processing applications and recommendations

The rapid growth of biomedical literature poses challenges for manual knowledge curation and synthesis. Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP) automates the process. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in general domains, their effectiveness in BioNLP tasks remains unclear due to limited benchmarks and practical guidelines. We perform a systematic evaluation of four LLMs, GPT and LLaMA representatives on 12 BioNLP benchmarks across six applications. We compare their zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning performance with traditional fine-tuning of BERT or BART models. We examine inconsistencies, missing information, hallucinations, and perform cost analysis. Here we show that traditional fine-tuning outperforms zero or few shot LLMs in most tasks. However, closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 excel in reasoning-related tasks such as medical question answering. Open source LLMs still require fine-tuning to close performance gaps. We find issues like missing information and hallucinations in LLM outputs. These results offer practical insights for applying LLMs in BioNLP.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking Next-Generation Reasoning-Focused Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Head-to-Head Evaluation on 5,888 Items

Recent advances in reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) mark a shift from general LLMs toward models designed for complex decision-making, a crucial aspect in medicine. However, their performance in specialized domains like ophthalmology remains underexplored. This study comprehensively evaluated and compared the accuracy and reasoning capabilities of four newly developed reasoning-focused LLMs, namely DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI o1, o3-mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking. Each model was assessed using 5,888 multiple-choice ophthalmology exam questions from the MedMCQA dataset in zero-shot setting. Quantitative evaluation included accuracy, Macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, METEOR, BERTScore, BARTScore, and AlignScore), computed against ground-truth reasonings. Average inference time was recorded for a subset of 100 randomly selected questions. Additionally, two board-certified ophthalmologists qualitatively assessed clarity, completeness, and reasoning structure of responses to differential diagnosis questions.O1 (0.902) and DeepSeek-R1 (0.888) achieved the highest accuracy, with o1 also leading in Macro-F1 (0.900). The performance of models across the text-generation metrics varied: O3-mini excelled in ROUGE-L (0.151), o1 in METEOR (0.232), DeepSeek-R1 and o3-mini tied for BERTScore (0.673), DeepSeek-R1 (-4.105) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking (-4.127) performed best in BARTScore, while o3-mini (0.181) and o1 (0.176) led AlignScore. Inference time across the models varied, with DeepSeek-R1 being slowest (40.4 seconds) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking fastest (6.7 seconds). Qualitative evaluation revealed that DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking tended to provide detailed and comprehensive intermediate reasoning, whereas o1 and o3-mini displayed concise and summarized justifications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can OpenAI o1 Reason Well in Ophthalmology? A 6,990-Question Head-to-Head Evaluation Study

Question: What is the performance and reasoning ability of OpenAI o1 compared to other large language models in addressing ophthalmology-specific questions? Findings: This study evaluated OpenAI o1 and five LLMs using 6,990 ophthalmological questions from MedMCQA. O1 achieved the highest accuracy (0.88) and macro-F1 score but ranked third in reasoning capabilities based on text-generation metrics. Across subtopics, o1 ranked first in ``Lens'' and ``Glaucoma'' but second to GPT-4o in ``Corneal and External Diseases'', ``Vitreous and Retina'' and ``Oculoplastic and Orbital Diseases''. Subgroup analyses showed o1 performed better on queries with longer ground truth explanations. Meaning: O1's reasoning enhancements may not fully extend to ophthalmology, underscoring the need for domain-specific refinements to optimize performance in specialized fields like ophthalmology.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Enhancing Large Language Models with Domain-specific Retrieval Augment Generation: A Case Study on Long-form Consumer Health Question Answering in Ophthalmology

Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252 references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution (increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P<0.001), albeit with slight decreases in accuracy (from 3.52 to 3.23, P=0.03) and completeness (from 3.47 to 3.27, P=0.17). The results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibited hallucinated and erroneous evidence in the responses, raising concerns for downstream applications in the medical domain. RAG substantially reduced the proportion of such evidence but encountered challenges.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

End-to-End Models for Chemical-Protein Interaction Extraction: Better Tokenization and Span-Based Pipeline Strategies

End-to-end relation extraction (E2ERE) is an important task in information extraction, more so for biomedicine as scientific literature continues to grow exponentially. E2ERE typically involves identifying entities (or named entity recognition (NER)) and associated relations, while most RE tasks simply assume that the entities are provided upfront and end up performing relation classification. E2ERE is inherently more difficult than RE alone given the potential snowball effect of errors from NER leading to more errors in RE. A complex dataset in biomedical E2ERE is the ChemProt dataset (BioCreative VI, 2017) that identifies relations between chemical compounds and genes/proteins in scientific literature. ChemProt is included in all recent biomedical natural language processing benchmarks including BLUE, BLURB, and BigBio. However, its treatment in these benchmarks and in other separate efforts is typically not end-to-end, with few exceptions. In this effort, we employ a span-based pipeline approach to produce a new state-of-the-art E2ERE performance on the ChemProt dataset, resulting in $> 4\%$ improvement in F1-score over the prior best effort. Our results indicate that a straightforward fine-grained tokenization scheme helps span-based approaches excel in E2ERE, especially with regards to handling complex named entities. Our error analysis also identifies a few key failure modes in E2ERE for ChemProt.

cs.CL↗