arXiv AI

MedConstBench: Benchmarking How Constitutions Steer LLMs in Medical Ethics

MedConstBench is a new medical‑ethics benchmark that treats a model’s deployment constitution as a controllable variable. It is organized around Beauchamp’s four principles and uses human‑calibrated peer review to score responses. The benchmark includes the MedDilemma dataset of clinical dilemmas and demonstrates that different constitutions influence LLM behavior in a dimension‑selective, model‑dependent way, leading to a proposed adaptive selector that chooses the best constitution per model.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Rare Diseases, Common Dilemmas: LLMs Prioritize Equal Resource Distribution over Patient Benefit in Decision-Making

The study presents a benchmark of 208 rare‑disease clinical vignettes to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) handle ethically charged decision‑making. Across 11 state‑of‑the‑art LLMs, the models consistently favored justice—specifically equal resource allocation—over other bioethical principles such as beneficence, non‑maleficence, and autonomy. The authors also found that the framing of authority (committee vs. clinician vs. patient) influences which ethical principle the models prioritize, suggesting that institutional pressures may shape LLM decision support in rare‑disease care.

By Minda Zhao, Xu Han, Rishabh Goel, Maya Dagan, Noa Dagan, Adithya Madduri, Payal Chandak, Shilpa Nadimpalli Kobren, Isaac S. Kohane
arXiv AI
Aug 11

CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models

arXiv:2608. 08061v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The key question in moral judgement is not simply whether someone chooses the "right" answer, but how they decide what matters most when moral principles conflict.

By Siddarth Singh, Victoria Williams, Simon Rosen, Ebenezer Gelo, Helen Sarah Robertson, Ibrahim Suder, Benjamin Rosman, Geraud Nangue Tasse, Steven James
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

CARE: Privacy-Compliant Agentic Reasoning with Evidence Discordance

The paper introduces MIMIC-DOS, a dataset derived from MIMIC-IV that focuses on ICU cases where patient symptoms and medical signs are discordant. It presents CARE, a privacy‑compliant multi‑stage agentic reasoning framework that uses a proprietary LLM to generate structured categories and transitions, while a local LLM performs evidence acquisition and decision‑making. In retrospective evaluations on MIMIC‑DOS, CARE outperforms other LLMs and agentic workflows, demonstrating stronger handling of conflicting clinical evidence while preserving patient privacy.

By Haochen Liu, Weien Li, Rui Song, Zeyu Li, Chun Jason Xue, Xiao-Yang Liu, Sam Nallaperuma-Herzberg, Xue Liu, Ye Yuan
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Retrieval-Augmented Agentic Rubric Generation for Reliable Medical Response Evaluation

The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.

By Yinzhu Chen, Abdine Maiga, Hossein A. Rahmani, Emine Yilmaz
arXiv AI
Sep 25

IatroBench: A Pre-Registered Benchmark of Clinical Omission in Language Models

IatroBench is a pre‑registered benchmark that evaluates language models on clinical omission and commission harms across 60 scenarios and six models. Using a physician‑written rubric scored by Claude Opus 4.6, the study finds that models tend to withhold more information from patients than from doctors—a phenomenon termed framing‑contingent withholding—while also revealing varied patterns of omission across different models. The benchmark highlights how framing influences the amount of medical information shared by AI systems.

By David Gringras
arXiv AI
Jun 15

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.

By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
arXiv AI
Jul 29

PatientAgentBench: A Benchmark Framework for Evaluating Patient-Facing Health AI Agents

arXiv:2607. 25485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf.

By Korosh Vatanparvar, Ashutosh Joshi, Maria Xenochristou, Mohammad Abuzar Hashemi, Prasad Kasu, Deepak Bansal, Daniel Lopez-Martinez, Anchal Nema, Ramya Ganesan, Will Kimbrough, Alex Woody, Yadunandana Rao, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Wilko Schulz-Mahlendorf