# Identity or Evidence? Auditing Evidence Dependence in Agentic Life-Science Benchmarks

Preprint · Danai Brilli, Maria Georgila

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.36510
- Published: 2026-10-27
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36510
- Citations: 0
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36510
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.36510
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Agentic life-science benchmarks give an agent evidence about a named entity and score an answer against a recorded outcome. That score tests reasoning over evidence only if the evidence, rather than the name, determines the answer. We examine this distinction by varying identity and evidence independently on a clinical-outcome benchmark and published tasks from Biomni and LAB-Bench. Blinding identity matters little when a prompt contains a decisive sequence or passage. It matters a great deal when the prompt is mostly a name and candidate list (0.742 named versus 0.082 blinded; chance 0.093). Across 96 LAB-Bench LitQA2 questions, the gap increases under one fixed passage-redaction scheme (+0.000 to +0.135; per-instance slope +0.147, p= 0.004). On the clinical benchmark, a no-evidence recall probe matches prediction accuracy and recovers a database-specific programme count. So, we argue that benchmarks intended to measure evidence-dependent reasoning should report identity-blinded results, retrieval telemetry, and positive controls.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

Topics: [AI in Clinical Medicine](https://space-kitty.com/topics/ai-medicine)

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.