Skip to content
Review

A Multi-Analyst LLM Pipeline for Auditable Rule Discovery Across 68 Public Physiological Corpora

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.06802 · 0 citations · 20 references
Engineering Computer Science

TL;DR

A controlled four-analyst large-language-model (LLM) workflow for converting 68 public physiological corpora, screened for commercial-use compatibility, into an auditable library of candidate rule shapes for prospective validation, which produces an auditable engineering cascade.

Abstract

Open physiological corpora are heterogeneous: they use different sensors, labels, sampling rates, recording settings, and clinical endpoints. They can support detector design, but they do not directly specify which detector rules should be built for a new contactless monitoring platform. We report a controlled four-analyst large-language-model (LLM) workflow for converting 68 public physiological corpora, screened for commercial-use compatibility, into an auditable library of candidate rule shapes for prospective validation. Four independent commercial LLM families read the corpus documentation under a controlled prompt and produced 695 candidate rule markers (top-markers). Deduplication retained 649 rule records; a threshold-bounds audit then flagged 51 sanity violations for clamping or curator review. Cross-corpus consolidation produced 436 unique rule shapes. Gate-tagging against two hard invariants, native target-hardware channel availability and no multi-night per-patient personalization, identified 94 build-now detector components across four detector-family buckets. The pipeline does not produce a validated clinical detector. It produces an auditable engineering cascade in which analyst disagreement, threshold checks, curator review, and automated continuous-integration (CI) checks route literature-derived rules toward prospective hardware validation.

View source

Similar papers

Review Open access Sep 2026

An auditable evidence compiler for large language model-assisted systematic reviews

This case provides a framework for inspecting synthesized evidence together with its provenance, statistical meaning and correction history and provides a framework for inspecting synthesized evidence together with its provenance, statistical meaning and correction history.

C. Yin, Z. Jing, Z. Zhang · 0 citations
Review

Judging the LLM Judges: A Human-Centric Validation of LLM-Generated Training Data for Software Retrieval

A lightweight quality-assessment protocol is presented for LLM-generated synthetic training data and applied to 13,579 synthetic user reviews generated from GitHub issues across four open-source Android applications, high-lighting the need for hybrid human-AI verification when synthetic data is used in security-critica...

Ogtay Hasanov, Saad Ezzini · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Measuring Brand and Source Discovery under Repeated LLM Queries: A Finite-Sample Audit

Repeated-query audits must distinguish recovery of a collected set from completeness of possible outputs. We apply sample-based rarefaction to 4,500 responses from 50 buying questions, six configurations and 15 calls per cell. Historical-dictionary median ten-call recovery of the observed 15-call set ranges from 92.6%...

Dmitrij Żatuchin · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Sep 2026

Four Ledgers, Not One Score: Responsible Communication of LLM-Judge Calibration in Biomedical ML

This single-workflow forensic case is an existence proof of a failure mode, not an estimate of its prevalence: existing human work supports an exploratory audit of synthetic proposals, but not LLM-judge operating characteristics, clinical validity, corpus prevalence, or robust inter-annotator agreement.

Si-Di Chang, Pei-Ke Zhu · 0 citations
Review Aug 2026

Evaluating human and LLM screening workflows in a conceptually complex scoping review: Recall--workload trade-offs and run-to-run consistency

Compared human and LLM title-and-abstract screening workflows in a preregistered study embedded in a conceptually complex scoping review, finding that large language models are better suited to validated, auditable, human-supervised workflows than autonomous exclusion.

Nikol Figalová, Lynn Huestegge, Anne Böckler-Raettig · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.