Abstract:A recent Nature Medicine study reports that general-purpose frontier LLMs outperform specialized retrieval-augmented clinical tools on medical benchmarks, and that retrieval can hurt strong models. We ask the natural follow-up: does structured knowledge-graph (KG) grounding change this, and when does grounding help at all? We contribute two results. First, a reproduction: the study's headline HealthBench score (~88) is the Consensus variant, not full HealthBench, where frontier models and ideal completions both score ~46-47 under a physician-calibrated grader (agreement 82.5%); we reproduce GPT-5.2 Consensus =90.9 and flag a score-deflating grader bug. Second, a knowledge-boundary result. Using a graph+vector engine (samyama-graph) over the public biomedical KG PrimeKG, neither naive triple retrieval nor an agentic natural-language-to-Cypher loop (82% successful queries) improves MedQA across a weak-to-strong model ladder (all |Delta| <= 3.4). On a synthetic counterfactual KG, and on a hybrid benchmark mixing known and novel facts, the identical pipeline lifts out-of-training accuracy from chance to ~100% (+68 to +79) while adding nothing on known facts (a no-LLM arm answers both). Across three regimes (no-knowledge, graph-aided, hybrid), grounding helps only insofar as the decisive fact lies outside the model's training -- public-KG facts are redundant, private and novel data are where it pays -- matching the study's institutional-data caveat.
From: Sandeep Kunkunuru [view email]
[v1]
Sun, 21 Jun 2026 10:12:17 UTC (81 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。