KANEx: Translating Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks' Interpretability to Medical Explainability

Computer vision models have become highly effective for medical applications, yet their black-box nature continues to undermine clinician trust. In clinical workflows, chest X-ray classifiers are increasingly paired with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to generate natural-language explanations. However, these systems add linguistic fluency without addressing the underlying opacity of the visual model. With the emergence of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs), whose spline-based components provide inherently interpretable functional units, we investigate whether this architectural transparency can be leveraged to produce more trustworthy textual explanations. We introduce KANEx, the first ever framework that leverages the symbolic transparency of KANs to ground VLM reasoning. This interpretability also made it possible to design KAN-Map, a novel heatmap generation method derived directly from KAN models rather than gradient approximations. We feed these grounded contexts into downstream VLMs for enhanced explainability. Benchmarked on the MIMIC-CXR dataset, we demonstrate that KAN-based architectures with ResNet/ViT baselines demonstrate improved semantic similarity while producing significantly more faithful saliency maps. KAN architectures improve visual localization and downstream reasoning quality by 10%. Our findings suggest that grounding linguistic explanations and visual attributions in mathematically interpretable units is a necessary step toward trustworthy medical AI.

Factuality or Fiction? Benchmarking Modern LLMs on Ambiguous QA with Citations

Benchmarking modern large language models (LLMs) on complex and realistic tasks is critical to advancing their development. In this work, we evaluate the factual accuracy and citation performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on the task of Question Answering (QA) in ambiguous settings with source citations. Using three recently published datasets-DisentQA-DupliCite, DisentQA-ParaCite, and AmbigQA-Cite-featuring a range of real-world ambiguities, we analyze the performance of two leading LLMs, GPT-4o-mini and Claude-3.5. Our results show that larger, recent models consistently predict at least one correct answer in ambiguous contexts but fail to handle cases with multiple valid answers. Additionally, all models perform equally poorly in citation generation, with citation accuracy consistently at 0. However, introducing conflict-aware prompting leads to large improvements, enabling models to better address multiple valid answers and improve citation accuracy, while maintaining their ability to predict correct answers. These findings highlight the challenges and opportunities in developing LLMs that can handle ambiguity and provide reliable source citations. Our benchmarking study provides critical insights and sets a foundation for future improvements in trustworthy and interpretable QA systems.