# LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes > Source: > Published: 2026-09-02 11:07:07+00:00 # Computer Science > Computation and Language [Submitted on 31 Aug 2026] # Title:LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It [View PDF](/pdf/2608.31016) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.31016v1) Abstract:Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements. ### References & Citations Loading... # Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer *(*[What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer)) Connected Papers *(*[What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about)) Litmaps *(*[What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/)) scite Smart Citations *(*[What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv *(*[What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/)) CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers *(*[What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com)) DagsHub *(*[What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/)) Gotit.pub *(*[What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq)) Hugging Face *(*[What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface)) ScienceCast *(*[What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))# Demos # Recommenders and Search Tools Influence Flower *(*[What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/)) CORE Recommender *(*[What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [ Learn more about arXivLabs](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).