arXiv AI By Fay Elhassan, David Sasu, Alexandra Kulinkina, Lars Henning Klein, Mary-Anne Hartley

Preferred, Not Safer: Pairwise Preference Is a Poor Proxy for Clinical Safety

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 2

A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models

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.

By Andrei Marian Feier, Veysel Kocaman, Yigit Gul, Ahmet Korkmaz, Alexander Thomas, Aleksei Zakharov, Jay Gil, Mehmet Butgul, David Talby
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 17

Safety-Flag: A Unified Benchmark for the Reliability and Calibration of LLM Content Moderators

Safety-Flag is a unified benchmark that consolidates seven popular safety datasets into a single balanced flag/do‑not‑flag protocol, providing item‑level decisions and confidence scores for multiple large language models and dedicated guards. The benchmark evaluates moderator reliability across three dimensions—error direction, probability calibration, and confidence‑based error ranking—revealing that aggregate accuracy masks significant differences, such as one model flagging 85% of benign content while another misses 54% of harmful content. The study shows that general‑purpose models are overconfident, but temperature tuning can substantially improve calibration, and confidence‑based abstention can reduce selective risk, though performance varies with how well confidence ranks errors.

By Yibo Hu
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