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

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 06:10 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 06:40 — 2026-11-09 06:40(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:2026-11-09 06:10最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

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。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 06:08(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.38448

Benchmarking decision models against generative large language models on medical multiple-choice questions

Oscar Freyer, Daniel Glauert, Moritz Hofmann, Max Ostermann, Stephen Gilbert, Jakob Nikolas Kather

原文摘要

Medical workflows often require selecting among predefined options. We compared 13 decision models with 15 generative large language model configurations, including different reasoning settings, using 1,273 four-option MedQA questions under text-only conditions. Accuracy ranged from 67.71% to 89.08% for decision models and from 78.32% to 96.86% for generative configurations. Among the tested configurations, Mercury Decide had the lowest mean final-attempt cost (USD 0.0069 per 1,000 questions), while Clef Omni had the shortest median request duration (0.291 seconds). Decision-model probabilities distinguished correct from incorrect answers, but error rates among answers assigned probabilities of at least 0.90 ranged from 1.71% to 12.77%. Answer agreement across three runs ranged from 92.30% to 100%, while probability repeatability varied. Decision models offered resource advantages alongside lower peak accuracy; selecting models for medical workflows requires considering probability quality and repeatability together with accuracy and the resources needed to detect and correct errors.

cs.CL · cs.AI