Objective: Clinical documentation contains factual, diagnostic, and management errors that can compromise patient safety. Large language models (LLMs) may help detect and correct such errors, but their behavior under different prompting strategies remains unclear. We evaluate zero-shot prompting, static prompting with random exemplars (SPR), and retrieval-augmented dynamic prompting (RDP) for three subtasks of medical error processing: error flag detection, error sentence detection, and error correction. Methods: Using the MEDEC dataset, we evaluated nine instruction-tuned LLMs (GPT, Claude, Gemini, and OpenAI o-series models). We measured performance using accuracy, recall, false-positive rate (FPR), and an aggregate score of ROUGE-1, BLEURT, and BERTScore for error correction. We also analyzed example outputs to identify failure modes and differences between LLM and clinician reasoning. Results: Zero-shot prompting showed low recall in both detection tasks, often missing abbreviation-heavy or atypical errors. SPR improved recall but increased FPR. Across all nine LLMs, RDP reduced FPR by about 15 percent, improved recall by 5 to 10 percent in error sentence detection, and generated more contextually accurate corrections. Conclusion: Across diverse LLMs, RDP outperforms zero-shot and SPR prompting. Using retrieved exemplars improves detection accuracy, reduces false positives, and enhances the reliability of medical error correction.

AI-driven models have shown great promise in detecting errors in radiology reports, yet the field lacks a unified benchmark for rigorous evaluation of error detection and further correction. To address this gap, we introduce CorBenchX, a comprehensive suite for automated error detection and correction in chest X-ray reports, designed to advance AI-assisted quality control in clinical practice. We first synthesize a large-scale dataset of 26,326 chest X-ray error reports by injecting clinically common errors via prompting DeepSeek-R1, with each corrupted report paired with its original text, error type, and human-readable description. Leveraging this dataset, we benchmark both open- and closed-source vision-language models,(e.g., InternVL, Qwen-VL, GPT-4o, o4-mini, and Claude-3.7) for error detection and correction under zero-shot prompting. Among these models, o4-mini achieves the best performance, with 50.6 % detection accuracy and correction scores of BLEU 0.853, ROUGE 0.924, BERTScore 0.981, SembScore 0.865, and CheXbertF1 0.954, remaining below clinical-level accuracy, highlighting the challenge of precise report correction. To advance the state of the art, we propose a multi-step reinforcement learning (MSRL) framework that optimizes a multi-objective reward combining format compliance, error-type accuracy, and BLEU similarity. We apply MSRL to QwenVL2.5-7B, the top open-source model in our benchmark, achieving an improvement of 38.3% in single-error detection precision and 5.2% in single-error correction over the zero-shot baseline.

Several studies showed that Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer medical questions correctly, even outperforming the average human score in some medical exams. However, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the ability of language models to validate existing or generated medical text for correctness and consistency. In this paper, we introduce MEDEC (https://github.com/abachaa/MEDEC), the first publicly available benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes, covering five types of errors (Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, Pharmacotherapy, and Causal Organism). MEDEC consists of 3,848 clinical texts, including 488 clinical notes from three US hospital systems that were not previously seen by any LLM. The dataset has been used for the MEDIQA-CORR shared task to evaluate seventeen participating systems [Ben Abacha et al., 2024]. In this paper, we describe the data creation methods and we evaluate recent LLMs (e.g., o1-preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) for the tasks of detecting and correcting medical errors requiring both medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities. We also conducted a comparative study where two medical doctors performed the same task on the MEDEC test set. The results showed that MEDEC is a sufficiently challenging benchmark to assess the ability of models to validate existing or generated notes and to correct medical errors. We also found that although recent LLMs have a good performance in error detection and correction, they are still outperformed by medical doctors in these tasks. We discuss the potential factors behind this gap, the insights from our experiments, the limitations of current evaluation metrics, and share potential pointers for future research.

Error detection and correction are essential for ensuring robust and reliable operation in modern communication systems, particularly in complex transmission environments. However, discussions on these topics have largely been overlooked in semantic communication (SemCom), which focuses on transmitting meaning rather than symbols, leading to significant improvements in communication efficiency. Despite these advantages, semantic errors -- stemming from discrepancies between transmitted and received meanings -- present a major challenge to system reliability. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a comprehensive framework for detecting and correcting semantic errors in SemCom systems. We formally define semantic error, detection, and correction mechanisms, and identify key sources of semantic errors. To address these challenges, we develop a Gaussian process (GP)-based method for latent space monitoring to detect errors, alongside a human-in-the-loop reinforcement learning (HITL-RL) approach to optimize semantic model configurations using user feedback. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed methods in mitigating semantic errors under various conditions, including adversarial attacks, input feature changes, physical channel variations, and user preference shifts. This work lays the foundation for more reliable and adaptive SemCom systems with robust semantic error management techniques.

Classification of movement trajectories has many applications in transportation. Supervised neural models represent the current state-of-the-art. Recent security applications require this task to be rapidly employed in environments that may differ from the data used to train such models for which there is little training data. We provide a neuro-symbolic rule-based framework to conduct error correction and detection of these models to support eventual deployment in security applications. We provide a suite of experiments on several recent and state-of-the-art models and show an accuracy improvement of 1.7% over the SOTA model in the case where all classes are present in training and when 40% of classes are omitted from training, we obtain a 5.2% improvement (zero-shot) and 23.9% (few-shot) improvement over the SOTA model without resorting to retraining of the base model.

What good is a fast computer if you can't trust it? Thanks to half a century of research on getting computers to do their job correctly even in the presence of mechanical errors, our modern machines tend to be pretty reliable. Unfortunately, the laws of quantum mechanics render all that research useless for quantum computers, the sheer complexity of which leaves them prone to errors. Now, we finally have the first demonstration of a quantum program that can detect data corruption. Two research groups – one from the University of Maryland and Georgia Tech and the other from IBM – have demonstrated the same quantum error-detecting program, albeit implemented with different hardware.