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

+6109新增论文
+5222其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 07:04 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 06:17各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 07:30 — 2026-11-05 07:30(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:2026-11-05 07:04最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 06:17库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

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。

14,786 已收录论文12,897 AI 相关3,089 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 2026-11-05 07:02(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2606.04262

Can I Take Another Dose? DoseBench: Evaluating LLM Decision-Making in OTC Dosing QA

Maroof Kousar, Jinsung Han, Mohit Chandra, Munmun De Choudhury, Yibo Hu

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer everyday health questions online, including whether someone can take another dose of an over-the-counter (OTC) medication. Yet this common safety-relevant setting remains underexplored in medical QA. Answering these questions requires checking previous doses, timing, and product-specific dosing limits, while recognizing when important information is missing. We introduce DoseBench, a focused benchmark of 230 consumer-style acetaminophen and ibuprofen dosing questions with human-annotated YES, NO, and AMBIGUOUS labels, and evaluate eight LLMs with five responses per question. Overall accuracy ranges from 44.8% to 62.2%, while models incorrectly approve 14.0% to 60.5% of prohibited doses. Models with similar accuracy can therefore make very different dosing decisions. Additional analyses show that these failures are not easily fixed by giving models more guidance. Asking models to check dose, timing, and missing information makes them more cautious, while providing drug facts improves accuracy but can make them overlook missing information. These findings highlight a broader challenge in health QA: applying rules correctly and recognizing when information is missing.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.2164ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Reasoning Is Not All You Need: Examining LLMs for Multi-Turn Mental Health Conversations

Mohit Chandra, Siddharth Sriraman Georgia Institute of Technology, Harneet Singh Khanuja Georgia Institute of Technology, Yiqiao Jin, Munmun De Choudhury

Limited access to mental healthcare, extended wait times, and increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led individuals to turn to LLMs for fulfilling their mental health needs. However, examining the multi-turn mental health conversation capabilities of LLMs remains under-explored. Existing evaluation frameworks typically focus on diagnostic accuracy and win-rates and often overlook alignment with patient-specific goals, values, and personalities required for meaningful conversations. To address this, we introduce MedAgent, a novel framework for synthetically generating realistic, multi-turn mental health sensemaking conversations and use it to create the Mental Health Sensemaking Dialogue (MHSD) dataset, comprising over 2,200 patient–LLM conversations. Additionally, we present MultiSenseEval, a holistic framework to evaluate the multi-turn conversation abilities of LLMs in healthcare settings using human-centric criteria. Our findings reveal that frontier reasoning models yield below-par performance for patient-centric communication and struggle at precise (“hard”) diagnostic capabilities with average accuracy of ~31%. Additionally, we observed variation in model performance based on patient’s persona and performance drop with increasing turns in the conversation. Our work provides a comprehensive synthetic data generation framework, a dataset and evaluation framework for assessing LLMs in multi-turn mental health conversations.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

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

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗