arXiv:2606. 05170v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: At matched accuracy, open-weight LLMs differ substantially in the shape of their error severity distribution -- a difference invisible to the scalar error rate.
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
arXiv:2606. 16511v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work motivates moving large language model (LLM) evaluation from mean-based to tail-aware metrics, including conditional value-at-risk and tail-index estimates of reward-model error.
arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.
arXiv:2608. 05064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
arXiv:2606. 09843v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) produce stable self-reports on personality inventories, but these self-reports do not predict observed behavior.
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:2608. 14509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt.