arXiv:2511.20680v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite high performance on clinical benchmarks, large language models may reach correct conclusions through faulty reasoning, a failure mode with safety implications for oncology decision support that is not captured by accuracy-based evaluation. In this two-cohort retrospective study, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy of reasoning errors from GPT-4 chain-of-thought responses to real oncology notes and tested its clinical relevance. Using breast and pancreatic cancer notes from the CORAL dataset, we annotated 600 reasoning traces to define a three-tier taxonomy mapping computational failures to cognitive bias frameworks. We validated the taxonomy on 822 responses from prostate cancer consult notes spanning localized through metastatic disease, simulating extraction, analysis, and clinical recommendation tasks. Reasoning errors occurred in 23 percent of interpretations and dominated overall errors, with confirmation bias and anchoring bias most common. Reasoning failures were associated with guideline-discordant and potentially harmful recommendations, particularly in advanced disease management. Automated evaluators using state-of-the-art language models detected error presence but could not reliably classify subtypes. These findings show that large language models may provide fluent but clinically unsafe recommendations when reasoning is flawed. The taxonomy provides a generalizable framework for evaluating and improving reasoning fidelity before clinical deployment.

arXiv:2505.07317v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the ever-growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), AI-based software and its negative impact on the environment are no longer negligible, and studying and mitigating this impact has become a critical area of research. However, it is currently unclear which role environmental sustainability plays during AI adoption in industry and how AI regulations influence Green AI practices and decision-making in industry. We therefore aim to investigate the Green AI perception and management of industry practitioners. To this end, we conducted a total of 11 interviews with participants from 10 different organizations that adopted AI-based software. The interviews explored three main themes: AI adoption, current efforts in mitigating the negative environmental impact of AI, and the influence of the EU AI Act and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Our findings indicate that 9 of 11 participants prioritized business efficiency during AI adoption, with minimal consideration of environmental sustainability. Monitoring and mitigation of AI's environmental impact were very limited. Only one participant monitored negative environmental effects. Regarding applied mitigation practices, six participants reported no actions, with the others sporadically mentioning techniques like prompt engineering, relying on smaller models, or not overusing AI. Awareness and compliance with the EU AI Act are low, with only one participant reporting on its influence, while the CSRD drove sustainability reporting efforts primarily in larger companies. All in all, our findings reflect a lack of urgency and priority for sustainable AI among these companies. We suggest that current regulations are not very effective, which has implications for policymakers. Additionally, there is a need to raise industry awareness, but also to provide user-friendly techniques and tools for Green AI practices.