Weight-space programming for auditing clinical decision networks
Humza Nusrat, Omar Nusrat
AI 速览：作者报告前沿语言模型仅凭临床协议和网络权重即可盲审并修复小型放疗决策网络中的部分植入缺陷，但尚不能证明网络正确。
Machine learning models in radiotherapy are commissioned by testing them on cases with known answers, which may not reveal a shortcut that the test cases share with the training data. Frontier language models have recently been reported to read and write the raw weights of small neural networks, an ability called weight-space programming. The purpose of this study was to determine whether such a model, given only a clinical protocol and a network's weights, can audit and repair the network. Networks with 433 to 4,801 parameters were trained to screen head-and-neck planning requests against four rules. Flaws were planted through the training data: confounds that hid each rule, a 3 Gy shift in the cord threshold, and a hidden trigger. Claude Opus 5.5 audited each network blind, without tools, data or code execution, and every claim and repair was tested on about 420,000 requests. The language model named the broken rule in 16 of 18 flawed networks (95% CI 67% to 97%), including all 15 with a confound or a threshold shift. It repaired each of the 16 by changing a median of 3 parameters. Fine-tuning on protocol-labeled requests also repaired every network, but changed nearly every parameter. Each confound and shift it found was visible in single units, and a simple statistic chosen for each flaw type found the same flaws. It cleared 2 of 5 healthy networks without being forced and found 1 of 3 triggers. Testing against the protocol detected every flaw, and black-box testing found the confounds and the shift faster. The results indicate that, in small networks, weight-space programming can locate and repair flaws that silence an input or shift a threshold, but cannot yet certify that a network is correct.
Background and purpose: Radiotherapy planning agents based on large language models (LLMs) decide when to submit a plan or request review but are evaluated mainly by dose. This study developed OpenGray, a benchmark of planning tasks with known correct decisions. Materials and methods: OpenGray adds tasks with known answers to the OpenKBP-Opt head-and-neck dataset, including two contradictions with dose goals proven incompatible and a feasible control with a stored plan meeting every hard goal. Four systems, from a rule-based planning script to a full LLM agent, were evaluated on 30 patients, the LLM-based ones with a commercial (Terra) and a local (Ministral 3 8B) LLM. Decisions, achieved dose, problem recognition, and technical failures were recorded and also read from logs of 39 stereotactic radiosurgery runs of SAGE, a clinical LLM agent. Results: With Terra, the script preceded by an LLM review and the full agent had decision accuracies of 95.4% and 92.1%, respectively, yet escalated only 50% (95% confidence interval, 25-75%) and 25% (10-40%) of overlap contradictions, which required arithmetic on the anatomy. All four systems submitted every feasible control, but 24% of these plans missed a hard goal that the stored plan had met. In four SAGE runs, one goal failed at every attempt; the agent identified it in every reply but had no action for stopping. Conclusions: Favorable aggregate scores concealed specific decision failures. Planning agents should be evaluated on their decisions as well as their dose and given an explicit action for stopping and requesting review.