{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/arxiv-2608-31016","title":"LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It","arxiv_id":"2608.31016","date":"2026-08-31","proceeding":null,"authors":["Sebastian Fox","Luke Markham","Ryan Lail","Michael Karotsieris"],"abstract":"Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.31016","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.31016","source":{"archive":null,"snapshot":"2025-07-28","note":"not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen at the snapshot)","row_kind":"graph","title_abstract_authors_date":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)"},"code_links":[],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":"https://app.syntology.ai/?focus=2608.31016","mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers","read_at":"2026-09-24T18:15:14+00:00","read_at_is":"when the build read Syntology's graph, not when any sample ran","claim":"Per-sample execution status on synthesized fixtures; not a correctness claim about the paper. Samples come from repositories linked to the paper, official or community; repo_kind says which.","repos":[{"mentioned_in_github":null,"is_official":null,"provenance":"deterministic:regex_extraction","mentioned_in_paper":null,"url":"https://github.com/composo-ai/omission-bench","reach":{"status":"ok","spdx":"MIT"}}],"summary":{},"by_repo_kind":{},"repo_kind_vocabulary":{"official":"The archive marks this repository official for the paper","named_in_paper":"The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official","listed":"In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper","found_in_text":"Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted","community":"Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested"},"n_pointer_only_for_licence":0,"samples":[]},"arxiv_metadata":{"licence":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)","fields":["title","abstract","authors","date"],"primary_category":"cs.CL","source":"arxiv_daily_20260901.json"},"syntology_extracted_results":{"kind":"leaderboard_placements","source":"Syntology's leaderboard-shaped extractor over the paper's own arXiv-HTML tables: a model pointed at a cell, the number was read from that cell and checked against the board's metric, dataset, split and scale, and an independent check accepted the entry; not reviewed by the paper's authors or the archive's editors","extractor_model":"global.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929-v1:0","verifier_model":null,"prompt_sha":"fa63d4bb9d755694","coverage":{"sentence":"Syntology has checked 6,264 of the 9,581 papers on this site that are newer than the archive; results from the others appear after they are checked.","papers_newer_than_archive":9581,"papers_checked":6264},"entries":[],"not_placed":{"boards":0,"rejected_by_independent_check":0,"refused_by_a_rule":0,"check_did_not_answer":0,"proposed_without_a_cell":0,"declined_by_site":0}}}