BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Jeta Sopa

Jeta Sopa appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Artificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageMachine LearningComputer Vision

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Just Ask for a Table: A Thirty-Token User Prompt Defeats Sponsored Recommendations in Twelve LLMs

Wu et al. (2026) showed that most frontier large language models (LLMs) recommend a sponsored, roughly twice-as-expensive flight when their system prompt contains a soft sponsorship cue. We reproduce their evaluation on ten open-weight chat models plus the two of their twenty-three models that are still reachable today (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4o). All reported rates in this paper are produced under the same judge the original paper used (gpt-4o); we additionally store every label under an open-weight (gpt-oss-120b) and a smaller proprietary (gpt-4o-mini) judge for an ablation. Three findings emerge. First, a prose description of an LLM evaluation pipeline is not, on its own, sufficient for accurate reproduction: we surfaced three silent implementation failures that each shifted a reported rate by tens of percentage points. Second, the central claims do generalise - the gpt-3.5-turbo logistic-regression intercept of alpha = 0.81 is within four points of the original alpha = 0.86, and 200 of 200 trials on gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o promote a payday lender to a financially distressed user. Third, a thirty-token user prompt that asks the assistant for a neutral comparison table first cuts sponsored recommendation from 46.9% to 1.0% averaged across our ten open-source models, and from 53.0% to 0% averaged across the two OpenAI models. AI literacy and price-comparison portals are likely market-level mitigations; the harmful-product cell is bounded by neither. Raw data, labels and analysis scripts are at https://github.com/akmaier/Paper-LLM-Ads .

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Safety and accuracy follow different scaling laws in clinical large language models

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2025arXiv

Multi-step retrieval and reasoning improves radiology question answering with large language models

Clinical decision-making in radiology increasingly benefits from artificial intelligence (AI), particularly through large language models (LLMs). However, traditional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems for radiology question answering (QA) typically rely on single-step retrieval, limiting their ability to handle complex clinical reasoning tasks. Here we propose radiology Retrieval and Reasoning (RaR), a multi-step retrieval and reasoning framework designed to improve diagnostic accuracy, factual consistency, and clinical reliability of LLMs in radiology question answering. We evaluated 25 LLMs spanning diverse architectures, parameter scales (0.5B to >670B), and training paradigms (general-purpose, reasoning-optimized, clinically fine-tuned), using 104 expert-curated radiology questions from previously established RSNA-RadioQA and ExtendedQA datasets. To assess generalizability, we additionally tested on an unseen internal dataset of 65 real-world radiology board examination questions. RaR significantly improved mean diagnostic accuracy over zero-shot prompting and conventional online RAG. The greatest gains occurred in small-scale models, while very large models (>200B parameters) demonstrated minimal changes (<2% improvement). Additionally, RaR retrieval reduced hallucinations (mean 9.4%) and retrieved clinically relevant context in 46% of cases, substantially aiding factual grounding. Even clinically fine-tuned models showed gains from RaR (e.g., MedGemma-27B), indicating that retrieval remains beneficial despite embedded domain knowledge. These results highlight the potential of RaR to enhance factuality and diagnostic accuracy in radiology QA, warranting future studies to validate their clinical utility. All datasets, code, and the full RaR framework are publicly available to support open research and clinical translation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access