← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.16821 · v1
Calibration and Conformal Prediction for Medical Question Answering in Arabic and English: Evidence from Two Non-Parallel Benchmarks
首次提交 2026-11-12 21:57
版本更新 2026-11-12 21:57
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:15
摘要
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly tested on medical exam questions, but accuracy alone does not show when an answer can be trusted. I study the calibration and uncertainty of two open-weight models, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Jais-adapted-7B-chat (both run in 4-bit precision), on 2,816 English multiple-choice questions from MedMCQA and 4,927 Arabic multiple-choice questions from MedAraBench. Accuracy was 0.561 (English) and 0.430 (Arabic) for Qwen, and 0.369 and 0.308 for Jais. Raw option probabilities were overconfident in all four settings (expected calibration error 0.242 to 0.486), and a single temperature parameter removed 82% to 93% of that error. Split conformal prediction reached its nominal coverage in all 24 settings I tested (within 0.006), but the sets were large when accuracy was low: at 90% coverage, temperature-scaled sets contained on average 63% (Qwen, English), 78% (Qwen, Arabic), 86% (Jais, English) and 89% (Jais, Arabic) of the options. The margin between the top two option probabilities separated correct from incorrect answers best for Qwen on English (AUROC 0.734) and worst for Jais on Arabic (0.579). Answering only the 20% most confident questions lowered Qwen's English error from 0.439 to 0.098. Jais showed a strong prior for option C (49% of English and 60% of Arabic predictions). Scoring Latin letters only cut the Arabic share to 29% but left accuracy, raw ECE and AUROC nearly unchanged. Because the two benchmarks differ in subject, level and number of options, I do not attribute differences between languages to language itself. Code is available at https://github.com/Mariyaaleem/arabic-english-medqa-uncertainty.
作者备注：15 pages, 1 figure, 12 tables. Code: https://github.com/Mariyaaleem/arabic-english-medqa-uncertainty
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-12 21:57 · 最新观测版本
Calibration and Conformal Prediction for Medical Question Answering in Arabic and English: Evidence from Two Non-Parallel Benchmarks
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly tested on medical exam questions, but accuracy alone does not show when an answer can be trusted. I study the calibration and uncertainty of two open-weight models, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Jais-adapted-7B-chat (both run in 4-bit precision), on 2,816 English multiple-choice questions from MedMCQA and 4,927 Arabic multiple-choice questions from MedAraBench. Accuracy was 0.561 (English) and 0.430 (Arabic) for Qwen, and 0.369 and 0.308 for Jais. Raw option probabilities were overconfident in all four settings (expected calibration error 0.242 to 0.486), and a single temperature parameter removed 82% to 93% of that error. Split conformal prediction reached its nominal coverage in all 24 settings I tested (within 0.006), but the sets were large when accuracy was low: at 90% coverage, temperature-scaled sets contained on average 63% (Qwen, English), 78% (Qwen, Arabic), 86% (Jais, English) and 89% (Jais, Arabic) of the options. The margin between the top two option probabilities separated correct from incorrect answers best for Qwen on English (AUROC 0.734) and worst for Jais on Arabic (0.579). Answering only the 20% most confident questions lowered Qwen's English error from 0.439 to 0.098. Jais showed a strong prior for option C (49% of English and 60% of Arabic predictions). Scoring Latin letters only cut the Arabic share to 29% but left accuracy, raw ECE and AUROC nearly unchanged. Because the two benchmarks differ in subject, level and number of options, I do not attribute differences between languages to language itself. Code is available at https://github.com/Mariyaaleem/arabic-english-medqa-uncertainty.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗