López-Varela, Jorge, Hidalgo, J. Ignacio, Muñoz, José-Manuel, Costilla-Reyes, Omar, Maqueda, Esther, Moreno-Fernandez, Jesus, González-Vidal, Tomás, Velasco, J. Manuel, Garnica, Oscar · Sep 10, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: LLMs Audit Physiological Plausibility in Symbolic Regression
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors of an cs.AI paper examine whether can help assess the and physiological plausibility of expressions produced by symbolic regression, a method that derives mathematical expressions from data. They use the models after expression generation to interpret and rank expressions, building on earlier work estimating body fat percentage. In the case study, three LLMs analyzed four expressions over three repeated runs, and three clinicians assessed their outputs. The authors report that clinicians assessed comparative rankings more favorably than interpretations of individual terms. But the models also produced explanations the authors describe as physiologically and mathematically questionable. Their conclusion is cautious: they consider LLMs more suitable for comparative auditing with expert oversight than for autonomous validation. The distinction is between helping experts compare candidate expressions and independently establishing that an expression is scientifically sound. The abstract does not give the assessment criteria or detailed results, so the basis and extent of the clinicians’ preference cannot be judged from this account alone.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Sep 10, 2026 (2026-09-10).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:52.911Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T22:17:52.774Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The abstract does not specify the criteria clinicians used to assess interpretations and rankings. The abstract does not identify the three or provide detailed results for the expressions and repeated runs.
Open question
What assessment criteria led clinicians to rate comparative rankings more favorably than isolated term-level interpretations?
Source-stated
The authors investigate LLMs as post-processing tools for assessing the interpretability and physiological plausibility of symbolic regression expressions.
we investigate LLMs as post-processing tools to analyze and rank evolved expressions by interpretability and physiological plausibility.
Source-stated
The study examined four symbolic expressions using three LLMs over three repeated runs, with interpretations and rankings assessed by three clinicians.
Four symbolic expressions are analyzed by three LLMs over three repeated runs, and the resulting interpretations and rankings are assessed by a panel of three clinicians.
Source-stated
The authors report that comparative model rankings received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations, while the LLMs also generated physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations.
comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations. However, the LLMs also produced physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations
Source-stated
The authors judge that LLMs are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.
they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.
Source and contributor context
López-Varela, Jorge, Hidalgo, J. Ignacio, Muñoz, José-Manuel, Costilla-Reyes, Omar, Maqueda, Esther, Moreno-Fernandez, Jesus, González-Vidal, Tomás, Velasco, J. Manuel, Garnica, Oscar · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Interpretability
Research into how a model reaches its outputs, often by examining its internal workings.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 8fb7197d-5188-489f-82ba-151586c04cde.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 34b11bf3ea16621d76ed0fb65f2c9186e758fe8b5dc9e063d64a4f770d668b61. Source text hash: 89e5d5034cdb1beeadf353599a5484563f54572acf61a2ba19199bcdaf6ff607.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z
arXiv cs.AI: LLMs Audit Physiological Plausibility in Symbolic Regression
The authors of an cs.AI paper examine whether can help assess the and physiological plausibility of expressions produced by symbolic regression, a method that derives mathematical expressions from data. They use the models after expression generation to interpret and rank expressions, building on earlier work estimating body fat percentage. In the case study, three LLMs analyzed four expressions over three repeated runs, and three clinicians assessed their outputs. The authors report that clinicians assessed comparative rankings more favorably than interpretations of individual terms. But the models also produced explanations the authors describe as physiologically and mathematically questionable. Their conclusion is cautious: they consider LLMs more suitable for comparative auditing with expert oversight than for autonomous validation. The distinction is between helping experts compare candidate expressions and independently establishing that an expression is scientifically sound. The abstract does not give the assessment criteria or detailed results, so the basis and extent of the clinicians’ preference cannot be judged from this account alone.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Sep 10, 2026 (2026-09-10).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:52.911Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T22:17:52.774Z.
Limits
The abstract does not specify the criteria clinicians used to assess interpretations and rankings. The abstract does not identify the three or provide detailed results for the expressions and repeated runs.
Open question
What assessment criteria led clinicians to rate comparative rankings more favorably than isolated term-level interpretations?
Source-stated
The authors investigate LLMs as post-processing tools for assessing the interpretability and physiological plausibility of symbolic regression expressions.
we investigate LLMs as post-processing tools to analyze and rank evolved expressions by interpretability and physiological plausibility.
Source-stated
The study examined four symbolic expressions using three LLMs over three repeated runs, with interpretations and rankings assessed by three clinicians.
Four symbolic expressions are analyzed by three LLMs over three repeated runs, and the resulting interpretations and rankings are assessed by a panel of three clinicians.
Source-stated
The authors report that comparative model rankings received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations, while the LLMs also generated physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations.
comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations. However, the LLMs also produced physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations
Source-stated
The authors judge that LLMs are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.
they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.
Source and contributor context
López-Varela, Jorge, Hidalgo, J. Ignacio, Muñoz, José-Manuel, Costilla-Reyes, Omar, Maqueda, Esther, Moreno-Fernandez, Jesus, González-Vidal, Tomás, Velasco, J. Manuel, Garnica, Oscar · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Interpretability
Research into how a model reaches its outputs, often by examining its internal workings.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 8fb7197d-5188-489f-82ba-151586c04cde.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 34b11bf3ea16621d76ed0fb65f2c9186e758fe8b5dc9e063d64a4f770d668b61. Source text hash: 89e5d5034cdb1beeadf353599a5484563f54572acf61a2ba19199bcdaf6ff607.
passed · 2026-11-12T22:18:35.381Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 8fb7197d-5188-489f-82ba-151586c04cde
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the study, findings and conclusion to the authors of the arXiv cs.AI paper. It keeps the clinicians' assessments and the cautious recommendation as reported results, not established facts.
indicating that they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation
summary — pass: The reading leads with the study question and gives a plain-language definition of symbolic regression. It accurately conveys the design (four expressions, three LLMs, three runs, three clinicians), the mixed finding and the cautious conclusion. It also names the body-fat context, which is the authors' own prior work. The title and question are faithful, and the reading is understandable without specialist background. It omits genetic programming, but the meaning does not depend on it.
Building on our previous work on estimating body fat percentage using grammar-based genetic programming
date — pass: originalPublished is 2026-09-10. This matches the v1 submission date on the arXiv page, not the 6 Nov 2026 revision or the November feed date.
[Submitted on 10 Sep 2026 (v1), last revised 6 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
support — pass: Every claim is directly supported by the abstract. The sentence contrasting help for experts comparing expressions with independent validation is a close paraphrase of the source's comparative-auditing versus autonomous-validation distinction. The limitations are accurate: the abstract does not name the LLMs or the clinicians' assessment criteria. The question follows from that gap without implying an answer.
comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the direct original source and the most relevant access point for readers.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referenceResearch into how a model reaches its outputs, often by examining its internal workings.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition referenceResearch into how a model reaches its outputs, often by examining its internal workings.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Definition reference