Diagnosis, Bad Planning & Reasoning. Treatment, SCOPE -- Planning for Hybrid Querying over Clinical Trial Data

We study clinical trial table reasoning, where answers are not directly stored in visible cells but must be reasoned from semantic understanding through normalization, classification, extraction, or lightweight domain reasoning. Motivated by the observation that current LLM approaches often suffer from "bad reasoning" under implicit planning assumptions, we focus on settings in which the model must recover implicit attributes such as therapy type, added agents, endpoint roles, or follow-up status from partially observed clinical-trial tables. We propose SCOPE (Structured Clinical hybrid Planning for Evidence retrieval in clinical trials), a multi-LLM planner-based framework that decomposes the task into row selection, structured planning, and execution. The planner makes the source field, reasoning rules, and output constraints explicit before answer generation, reducing ambiguity relative to direct prompting. We evaluate SCOPE on 1,500 hybrid reasoning questions over oncology clinical-trial tables against zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, TableGPT2, Blend-SQL, and EHRAgent. Results show that explicit multi-LLM planning improves accuracy for reasoning-based questions while offering a stronger accuracy-efficiency tradeoff than heavier agentic baselines. Our findings position clinical trial reasoning as a distinct table understanding problem and highlight hybrid planner-based decomposition as an effective solution

ViTaB-A: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models on Visual Table Attribution

Multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) are often used to answer questions in structured data such as tables in Markdown, JSON, and images. While these models can often give correct answers, users also need to know where those answers come from. In this work, we study structured data attribution/citation, which is the ability of the models to point to the specific rows and columns that support an answer. We evaluate several mLLMs across different table formats and prompting strategies. Our results show a clear gap between question answering and evidence attribution. Although question answering accuracy remains moderate, attribution accuracy is much lower, near random for JSON inputs, across all models. We also find that models are more reliable at citing rows than columns, and struggle more with textual formats than images. Finally, we observe notable differences across model families. Overall, our findings show that current mLLMs are unreliable at providing fine-grained, trustworthy attribution for structured data, which limits their usage in applications requiring transparency and traceability.

TraceBack: Multi-Agent Decomposition for Fine-Grained Table Attribution

Question answering (QA) over structured tables requires not only accurate answers but also transparency about which cells support them. Existing table QA systems rarely provide fine-grained attribution, so even correct answers often lack verifiable grounding, limiting trust in high-stakes settings. We address this with TraceBack, a modular multi-agent framework for scalable, cell-level attribution in single-table QA. TraceBack prunes tables to relevant rows and columns, decomposes questions into semantically coherent sub-questions, and aligns each answer span with its supporting cells, capturing both explicit and implicit evidence used in intermediate reasoning steps. To enable systematic evaluation, we release CITEBench, a benchmark with phrase-to-cell annotations drawn from ToTTo, FetaQA, and AITQA. We further propose FairScore, a reference-less metric that compares atomic facts derived from predicted cells and answers to estimate attribution precision and recall without human cell labels. Experiments show that TraceBack substantially outperforms strong baselines across datasets and granularities, while FairScore closely tracks human judgments and preserves relative method rankings, supporting interpretable and scalable evaluation of table-based QA.

DoPE: Decoy Oriented Perturbation Encapsulation Human-Readable, AI-Hostile Documents for Academic Integrity

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can directly consume exam documents, threatening conventional assessments and academic integrity. We present DoPE (Decoy-Oriented Perturbation Encapsulation), a document-layer defense framework that embeds semantic decoys into PDF/HTML assessments to exploit render-parse discrepancies in MLLM pipelines. By instrumenting exams at authoring time, DoPE provides model-agnostic prevention (stop or confound automated solving) and detection (flag blind AI reliance) without relying on conventional one-shot classifiers. We formalize prevention and detection tasks, and introduce FewSoRT-Q, an LLM-guided pipeline that generates question-level semantic decoys and FewSoRT-D to encapsulate them into watermarked documents. We evaluate on Integrity-Bench, a novel benchmark of 1826 exams (PDF+HTML) derived from public QA datasets and OpenCourseWare. Against black-box MLLMs from OpenAI and Anthropic, DoPE yields strong empirical gains: a 91.4% detection rate at an 8.7% false-positive rate using an LLM-as-Judge verifier, and prevents successful completion or induces decoy-aligned failures in 96.3% of attempts. We release Integrity-Bench, our toolkit, and evaluation code to enable reproducible study of document-layer defenses for academic integrity.

Integrity Shield A System for Ethical AI Use & Authorship Transparency in Assessments

Large Language Models (LLMs) can now solve entire exams directly from uploaded PDF assessments, raising urgent concerns about academic integrity and the reliability of grades and credentials. Existing watermarking techniques either operate at the token level or assume control over the model's decoding process, making them ineffective when students query proprietary black-box systems with instructor-provided documents. We present Integrity Shield, a document-layer watermarking system that embeds schema-aware, item-level watermarks into assessment PDFs while keeping their human-visible appearance unchanged. These watermarks consistently prevent MLLMs from answering shielded exam PDFs and encode stable, item-level signatures that can be reliably recovered from model or student responses. Across 30 exams spanning STEM, humanities, and medical reasoning, Integrity Shield achieves exceptionally high prevention (91-94% exam-level blocking) and strong detection reliability (89-93% signature retrieval) across four commercial MLLMs. Our demo showcases an interactive interface where instructors upload an exam, preview watermark behavior, and inspect pre/post AI performance & authorship evidence.

TabReX : Tabular Referenceless eXplainable Evaluation

Evaluating the quality of tables generated by large language models (LLMs) remains an open challenge: existing metrics either flatten tables into text, ignoring structure, or rely on fixed references that limit generalization. We present TabReX, a reference-less, property-driven framework for evaluating tabular generation via graph-based reasoning. TabReX converts both source text and generated tables into canonical knowledge graphs, aligns them through an LLM-guided matching process, and computes interpretable, rubric-aware scores that quantify structural and factual fidelity. The resulting metric provides controllable trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, yielding human-aligned judgments and cell-level error traces. To systematically asses metric robustness, we introduce TabReX-Bench, a large-scale benchmark spanning six domains and twelve planner-driven perturbation types across three difficulty tiers. Empirical results show that TabReX achieves the highest correlation with expert rankings, remains stable under harder perturbations, and enables fine-grained model-vs-prompt analysis establishing a new paradigm for trustworthy, explainable evaluation of structured generation systems.

The Perceptual Observatory Characterizing Robustness and Grounding in MLLMs

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have yielded increasingly powerful models, yet their perceptual capacities remain poorly characterized. In practice, most model families scale language component while reusing nearly identical vision encoders (e.g., Qwen2.5-VL 3B/7B/72B), which raises pivotal concerns about whether progress reflects genuine visual grounding or reliance on internet-scale textual world knowledge. Existing evaluation methods emphasize end-task accuracy, overlooking robustness, attribution fidelity, and reasoning under controlled perturbations. We present The Perceptual Observatory, a framework that characterizes MLLMs across verticals like: (i) simple vision tasks, such as face matching and text-in-vision comprehension capabilities; (ii) local-to-global understanding, encompassing image matching, grid pointing game, and attribute localization, which tests general visual grounding. Each vertical is instantiated with ground-truth datasets of faces and words, systematically perturbed through pixel-based augmentations and diffusion-based stylized illusions. The Perceptual Observatory moves beyond leaderboard accuracy to yield insights into how MLLMs preserve perceptual grounding and relational structure under perturbations, providing a principled foundation for analyzing strengths and weaknesses of current and future models.

TabXEval: Why this is a Bad Table? An eXhaustive Rubric for Table Evaluation

Evaluating tables qualitatively & quantitatively presents a significant challenge, as traditional metrics often fail to capture nuanced structural and content discrepancies. To address this, we introduce a novel, methodical rubric integrating multi-level structural descriptors with fine-grained contextual quantification, thereby establishing a robust foundation for comprehensive table comparison. Building on this foundation, we propose TabXEval, an eXhaustive and eXplainable two-phase evaluation framework. TabXEval initially aligns reference tables structurally via TabAlign & subsequently conducts a systematic semantic and syntactic comparison using TabCompare; this approach clarifies the evaluation process and pinpoints subtle discrepancies overlooked by conventional methods. The efficacy of this framework is assessed using TabXBench, a novel, diverse, multi-domain benchmark we developed, featuring realistic table perturbations and human-annotated assessments. Finally, a systematic analysis of existing evaluation methods through sensitivity-specificity trade-offs demonstrates the qualitative and quantitative effectiveness of TabXEval across diverse table-related tasks and domains, paving the way for future innovations in explainable table evaluation.

Rethinking Information Synthesis in Multimodal Question Answering A Multi-Agent Perspective

Recent advances in multimodal question answering have primarily focused on combining heterogeneous modalities or fine-tuning multimodal large language models. While these approaches have shown strong performance, they often rely on a single, generalized reasoning strategy, overlooking the unique characteristics of each modality ultimately limiting both accuracy and interpretability. To address these limitations, we propose MAMMQA, a multi-agent QA framework for multimodal inputs spanning text, tables, and images. Our system includes two Visual Language Model (VLM) agents and one text-based Large Language Model (LLM) agent. The first VLM decomposes the user query into sub-questions and sequentially retrieves partial answers from each modality. The second VLM synthesizes and refines these results through cross-modal reasoning. Finally, the LLM integrates the insights into a cohesive answer. This modular design enhances interpretability by making the reasoning process transparent and allows each agent to operate within its domain of expertise. Experiments on diverse multimodal QA benchmarks demonstrate that our cooperative, multi-agent framework consistently outperforms existing baselines in both accuracy and robustness.

Is Architectural Complexity Overrated? Competitive and Interpretable Knowledge Graph Completion with RelatE

We revisit the efficacy of simple, real-valued embedding models for knowledge graph completion and introduce RelatE, an interpretable and modular method that efficiently integrates dual representations for entities and relations. RelatE employs a real-valued phase-modulus decomposition, leveraging sinusoidal phase alignments to encode relational patterns such as symmetry, inversion, and composition. In contrast to recent approaches based on complex-valued embeddings or deep neural architectures, RelatE preserves architectural simplicity while achieving competitive or superior performance on standard benchmarks. Empirically, RelatE outperforms prior methods across several datasets: on YAGO3-10, it achieves an MRR of 0.521 and Hit@10 of 0.680, surpassing all baselines. Additionally, RelatE offers significant efficiency gains, reducing training time by 24%, inference latency by 31%, and peak GPU memory usage by 22% compared to RotatE. Perturbation studies demonstrate improved robustness, with MRR degradation reduced by up to 61% relative to TransE and by up to 19% compared to RotatE under structural edits such as edge removals and relation swaps. Formal analysis further establishes the model's full expressiveness and its capacity to represent essential first-order logical inference patterns. These results position RelatE as a scalable and interpretable alternative to more complex architectures for knowledge graph completion.