让大模型只说该说的话:用边界感知机制防止脑电误解释。
What the LLM Should Not Say: Boundary-Aware Context Grounding for A Seven-Channel EEG Agent

- 分离本地信号处理与语言层,仅传递受控摘要
- 7通道脑电数据处理结果10次重复一致,3次运行哈希相同
- 可抵御网络异常,适合科研级脑电分析场景
大语言模型(LLM)能简化科学软件使用,但无法自动识别特定传感器支持的测量、当前软件实现的算法或计算结果所支持的结论。在低通道脑电(EEG)中,稀疏空间覆盖和信号质量波动易导致看似合理却无依据的推断。我们提出NeuraDock Agent,一个开源架构,将确定性本地EEG引擎与硬件感知语言层分离。数值引擎解析记录、执行质量控制、运行已审查的谱分析流程,并生成机器可读成果。LLM仅接收精简的允许列表摘要与版本化上下文包,内容涵盖7通道硬件、已审查流程、结果字段、实现边界、科学限制及参考案例。原始脑电数据与密集样本数组保留在本地。我们在三个层面评估系统:第一,12段记录在十次重复中产生完全一致的结构化结果,一次完整的静息/任务运行在三次重复中结果、报告与图表哈希一致;第二,请求捕获与故障注入实验验证了在HTTP错误、输出损坏及连接中断下仍能保持数据边界与本地成果完整;第三,边界感知基准测试对36个常规与对抗性问题在四种上下文消融与两组LLM下共生成288个输出。结果支持基于硬件与实现边界的接地机制作为校准脑电代理接受、限定或拒绝内容的实用方法,但未建立临床有效性或验证的绝对认知负荷指数。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Large language models (LLMs) can make scientific software easier to use. However, a general model does not automatically know which measurements a particular sensor can support, which algorithms are implemented in the current software, or which conclusions are justified by a computed result. These distinctions are especially important for low-channel electroencephalography (EEG), where sparse spatial coverage and variable signal quality make plausible but unsupported interpretations easy to produce. We present NeuraDock Agent, an open-source architecture that separates a deterministic local EEG engine from a hardware-aware language layer. The numerical engine parses recordings, performs quality control, executes reviewed spectral workflows, and writes machine-readable artifacts. The LLM receives only a compact, allowlisted summary and a versioned context pack. The context describes the seven-channel hardware, reviewed workflows, result fields, implementation boundaries, scientific limits, and reference cases. Raw EEG and dense per-sample arrays remain local We evaluate the system at three levels. First, 12 recordings produced identical structured results over ten numerical repetitions, and a complete Rest/Task run produced identical result, report, and figure hashes over three repetitions. Second, request-capture and failure-injection experiments confirmed the tested data boundary and preservation of local artifacts under HTTP, malformed-output, and connection failures. Third, a boundary-awareness benchmark tested 36 ordinary and adversarial questions under four context ablations and two LLMs, yielding 288 outputs.These results support hardware- and implementation-aware grounding as a practical mechanism for calibrating what an EEG agent accepts, qualifies, or refuses; they do not establish clinical validity or a validated absolute cognitive-load index.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。