跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1691新增论文
+1393其中 AI 相关
+98已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-10 12:17 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 12:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-09 12:37 — 2026-11-10 12:37(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-10 12:17最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 12:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-09 00:55

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

19,579 已收录论文16,681 AI 相关5,189 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-10 12:16(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1365ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

LLMs (Almost) Never Abstain Under Medical Uncertainty

Alessio Cocchieri, Luca Ragazzi, Giuseppe Tagliavini University of Bologna, Gianluca Moro DISI - University of Bologna

原文摘要

Medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks implicitly assume that large language models (LLMs) should always commit to an answer. However, in clinical practice, uncertainty is pervasive and abstaining is often the safest action. We introduce MedQAbstain, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate medical abstention under uncertainty. MedQAbstain repurposes standard medical MCQA datasets by removing the gold answer and introducing an explicit “I abstain” option, framed as a safety-critical decision with clinical consequences. The benchmark supports systematic analysis across abstention regimes, distractor complexity, and input modalities, and elicits self-reported model confidence to study calibration. Across all settings, we find that state-of-the-art LLMs systematically overcommit, rarely abstaining even when the question itself is hidden. These results reveal a fundamental mismatch between LLM behavior and clinical norms, highlighting abstention as a critical but overlooked dimension of medical decision-making evaluation.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.497ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Sycophants in the Courtroom: Are LLMs Fragile to Juridical Authority and Evolving Legal Standards?

Lorenzo Molfetta University of Bologna, Alessio Cocchieri, Luca Ragazzi, Ilaria Bartolini University of Bologna, Marco Patella University of Bologna, Gianluca Moro DISI - University of Bologna

原文摘要

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model’s internal knowledge.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表