arXiv:2608.03854v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Quantized large language models can run on consumer hardware, which motivates interest in on-premises processing of sensitive data. The reliability...
By Anton Rasmussen, Hong Qin
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
By Matthew ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang, Sanyam Kapoor
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...
By Mridul Sharma, Adeetya Patel, Zaneta D' Souza, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Siva Reddy, Sreenath Madathil
The study evaluates how quantization affects accuracy and safety of five 7‑8B language models on clinical benchmarks. INT8 GPTQ shows minimal degradation (≤1.9%) across tasks, while INT4 causes substantial, model‑dependent drops, especially in high‑risk scenarios and safety metrics. Recovery methods such as clinical calibration substitution and QLoRA fine‑tuning yield mixed results, underscoring the need for task‑specific validation.
By Leonard Twagirayezu, Prasenjit Mitra
arXiv:2609.14825v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often deemed unsafe for clinical question answering because of their tendency to hallucinate. Retrieval augmentation...
By Zeyu Dong, Benjamin Wang, Joyee W. Jin
The paper introduces a multi‑signal pipeline for detecting hallucinations in large language models, combining fine‑tuned DeBERTa‑v3 classification, Monte Carlo Dropout uncertainty, and temperature‑scaled calibration. On the HaluEval benchmark it achieves high performance (F1 = 0.915, AUROC = 0.977) across QA, summarization, and dialogue, and shows that 25 % of training data yields 77 % of full‑data performance. The authors also demonstrate that applying Direct Preference Optimization to a Qwen2.5‑0.5B generator cuts hallucination rates from 85.5 % to 37.7 %, and that domain‑specific fine‑tuning (PubMedBERT on SciFact) outperforms general‑domain models for biomedical text.
By Varun Teja Chundru, Debasmita Biswas