arXiv:2606. 00027v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice.
arXiv:2508. 00923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer health-related questions and support healthcare workflows, yet evidence for their safety still relies heavily on static benchmarks that can rapidly become obsolete or be optimized against.
arXiv:2512. 01241v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
The article discusses how automated red‑teaming can uncover more vulnerabilities at lower cost than human red‑teaming on AI safety benchmarks, yet this comparison conflates measurement with conclusion. It argues that benchmarks only assess harms within a predefined set, leaving a "threat‑model coverage gap" that can hide new risks, as seen in non‑English prompts. The authors suggest that evaluators from deployment contexts distinct from developers are needed to close this gap.
SafeTune is a source‑available library that consolidates four safety‑intervention paradigms—post‑hoc weight recovery, safety‑constrained fine‑tuning, gradient‑based unlearning, and inference‑time steering—into a single, configuration‑driven workflow. It offers shared interpretability, evaluation, and deployment tools, and its modular registry allows easy addition of new methods, benchmarks, judges, models, and fine‑tuning domains. The authors demonstrate SafeTune with controlled comparisons and case studies in finance and medical deployments, showing how it characterizes safety drift, evaluates interventions on refusal‑behavior and capability metrics, and supports calibrated or layered mitigation.
arXiv:2602.06268v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows. However, p...
arXiv:2609.15855v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: % !TEX root = ../main.tex People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for mental health support, yet their safety in evolving, high-risk con...
arXiv:2608. 02617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate whether clinician pairwise preferences provide a reliable signal of clinical safety in large language model (LLM) evaluation using expert feedback from MOOVE (Massive Open Online Validation and Evaluation), a clinician-led platform collecting blinded pairwise preferences alongside multi-criterion rubric ratings.
arXiv:2409. 07314v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve superhuman performance on standardized medical licensing exams, these static benchmarks have become saturated and increasingly disconnected from the functional requirements of clinical workflows.
arXiv:2606. 07237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization.
arXiv:2606. 14149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare settings, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses risks when clinical decisions are involved.
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.