Paper detail

Compartmentalised Agentic Reasoning for Clinical NLI

Large language models can produce fluent judgments for clinical natural language inference, yet they frequently fail when the decision requires the correct inferential schema rather than surface matching. We introduce CARENLI, a compartmentalised agentic framework that routes each premise-statement pair to a reasoning family and then applies a specialised solver with explicit verification and targeted refinement. We evaluate on an expanded CTNLI benchmark of 200 instances spanning four reasoning families: Causal Attribution, Compositional Grounding, Epistemic Verification, and Risk State Abstraction. Across four contemporary backbone models, CARENLI improves mean accuracy from about 23% with direct prompting to about 57%, a gain of roughly 34 points, with the largest benefits on structurally demanding reasoning types. These results support compartmentalisation plus verification as a practical route to more reliable and auditable clinical inference.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.