跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1365 · 记录 #1

LLMs (Almost) Never Abstain Under Medical Uncertainty

来源日期(仅到月份) 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:54
ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗

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.

论文发现出处

这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

发表信息与关联版本

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。

记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本

LLMs (Almost) Never Abstain Under Medical Uncertainty

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.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗