The paper introduces the first benchmark for evaluating confidence estimation in large language models during multi‑turn medical consultations, combining three types of medical data and an information sufficiency gradient to capture how confidence and correctness evolve as evidence accumulates. Experiments with 27 methods reveal that token‑level and consistency‑level confidence approaches are limited by medical data, and that medical reasoning must be judged on both diagnostic accuracy and information completeness. Building on these findings, the authors propose MedConf, a retrieval‑augmented, linguistically grounded self‑assessment framework that aligns patient information with supporting, missing, and contradictory relations, producing interpretable confidence estimates that outperform existing methods across multiple datasets and LLMs.
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
arXiv:2608.29582v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) primarily focus on factual knowledge retrieval, overlooking the fundamental challenge of navigati...
arXiv:2607. 13036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving.
arXiv:2606. 17474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care.
arXiv:2606. 19509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data, yet whether they can recognize the limits of their own knowledge on such tasks remains unexplored.
arXiv:2606. 03969v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reliable uncertainty communication is critical to the trustworthiness of LLMs, yet faithful calibration (FC)--the alignment between models' intrinsic and (linguistically) expressed confidence--is a persistent failure mode.
arXiv:2608. 14552v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and used in medicine, but clinical usefulness depends on answer accuracy and whether confidence tracks evidence quality and uncertainty.
The paper investigates whether language models’ self-reported confidence is meaningful without additional training. By evaluating three training‑free signals—direct verbalization, post‑hoc probability estimates, and agreement across multiple generations—on 100 TriviaQA questions, the authors find that direct verbalization alone achieves high AUROC scores (0.956 and 0.937) for correctness prediction, while agreement-based methods perform noticeably worse. Re‑eliciting confidence for the same answers shows modest score shifts and occasional decision flips, and an audit of biography claims reveals only a small confidence gap between supported and contradicted statements.
arXiv:2509.19375v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for clinical text classification, where overconfident misclassifications can directly affect pati...
AcuityBench is a new benchmark that tests whether language models can correctly identify the urgency of medical care needed from user presentations. It unifies five public datasets—user conversations, online forum posts, clinical vignettes, and patient portal messages—under a shared four-level acuity framework, providing 914 cases for evaluation. The benchmark supports both explicit four-way classification and free-form conversational responses, revealing that models vary widely in accuracy and that conversational formats reduce over-triage but increase under-triage, especially for high-acuity cases.
The article reviews existing tools for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models, identifying six key dimensions—problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. It finds that no single instrument covers all dimensions, with some aspects reasonably addressed while others, especially faithfulness and counterfactual reasoning, remain weakly evaluated. The authors propose combining current tools through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, importance weighting, safety caps, temporal consistency checks, and chance‑corrected reliability reporting, and call for further design work on uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning, and faithfulness in longitudinal free‑text contexts.
The paper introduces AI Consilium, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on providing clinically grounded, coherent, actionable, and safe second opinions in multidisciplinary settings. Using 300 NEJM–MedQA cases, the study compares eight single-model pipelines that generate role-specific opinions and interactive-consilium reports under free-form and structured conditions. Results show that structured final reports generally score higher, especially in management, and that GPT‑5.6‑Sol outperforms other models across all evaluated components, demonstrating the benchmark’s ability to differentiate model capabilities and the impact of response structure.