mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What the LLM Should Not Say: Boundary-Aware Context Grounding for A Seven-Channel EEG Agent

arXiv 2606.26519 ↗First posted 25 Jun 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Medical and scientific domain agents

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.

Builds on

6 of 28 references.

References · 6

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  4. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
  5. 2022Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledgecited by 1,807
  6. 2020MCUNet: Tiny Deep Learning on IoT Devicescited by 269

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026NeuroNarrator: A Generalist EEG-to-Text Foundation Model for Clinical Interpretation via Spectro-Spatial Grounding and Temporal State-Space Reasoning
  2. 2026BrainBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Comprehensive EEG Understanding
  3. 2026CogEEGAgent: Toward Autonomous Cognitive EEG Analysis with Grounded Execution and Selection-Aware Verification
  4. 2026NeuraDock Visual Cognitive Load Agent Tutorial: A Quality-Gated Open-Source EEG Workflow for Alpha Dynamics and Real-Time Applications
  5. 2026NeuroWeaver: An Autonomous Evolutionary Agent for Exploring the Programmatic Space of EEG Analysis Pipelines
  6. 2025LLMs Help Alleviate the Cross-Subject Variability in Brain Signal and Language Alignment
  7. 2026AutoBCI: Forecast-Guided Agentic Neural Architecture Discovery for EEG-Based Brain--Computer Interfaces
  8. 2026NS-Copilot: An LLM-Driven Agent System for Autonomous Neuroscience Analysis