Do Large Language Models have Shared Weaknesses in Medical Question Answering?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07225v3
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 14:55:44 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models have Shared Weaknesses in Medical Question Answering?
• Authors: Andrew M. Bean, Karolina Korgul, Felix Krones, Robert McCraith, Adam Mahdi,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have made rapid improvement on medical benchmarks, but their unreliability remains a persistent challenge for safe real-world uses. We benchmark a range of top LLMs and identify consistent patterns across models. We found evidence of similarities between models in which questions they answer correctly, as well as similarities with human test takers.
• Score: 1.25828876338076
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made rapid improvement on medical benchmarks, but their unreliability remains a persistent challenge for safe real-world uses. To design for the use LLMs as a category, rather than for specific models, requires developing an understanding of shared strengths and weaknesses which appear across models. To address this challenge, we benchmark a range of top LLMs and identify consistent patterns across models. We test $16$ well-known LLMs on $874$ newly collected questions from Polish medical licensing exams. For each question, we score each model on the top-1 accuracy and the distribution of probabilities assigned. We then compare these results with factors such as question difficulty for humans, question length, and the scores of the other models. LLM accuracies were positively correlated pairwise ($0.39$ to $0.58$). Model performance was also correlated with human performance ($0.09$ to $0.13$), but negatively correlated to the difference between the question-level accuracy of top-scoring and bottom-scoring humans ($-0.09$ to $-0.14$). The top output probability and question length were positive and negative predictors of accuracy respectively (p$< 0.05$). The top scoring LLM, GPT-4o Turbo, scored $84\%$, with Claude Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro and Llama 3/3.1 between $74\%$ and $79\%$. We found evidence of similarities between models in which questions they answer correctly, as well as similarities with human test takers. Larger models typically performed better, but differences in training, architecture, and data were also highly impactful. Model accuracy was positively correlated with confidence, but negatively correlated with question length. We find similar results with older models, and argue that these patterns are likely to persist across future models using similar training methods.

Related papers

• Uncertainty Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Question Answering [60.72223137560633]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for natural language generation in healthcare, but risk hallucinating factually incorrect information. We benchmark popular uncertainty estimation (UE) methods with different model sizes on medical question-answering datasets. Our results show that current approaches generally perform poorly in this domain, highlighting the challenge of UE for medical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T16:51:33Z)
• Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models [56.02275285521847]
  We propose to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL) We find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:33:23Z)
• Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness as Disguised Accuracy [0.0]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) generations align with a large language model's (LLM) internal computations. A metric that measures a model's dependence on its CoT for producing an answer is proposed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T17:23:53Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)
• Better Diffusion Models Further Improve Adversarial Training [97.44991845907708]
  It has been recognized that the data generated by the diffusion probabilistic model (DDPM) improves adversarial training. This paper gives an affirmative answer by employing the most recent diffusion model which has higher efficiency. Our adversarially trained models achieve state-of-the-art performance on RobustBench using only generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T13:46:42Z)
• Deconstructing Distributions: A Pointwise Framework of Learning [15.517383696434162]
  We study a point's $textitprofile$: the relationship between models' average performance on the test distribution and their pointwise performance on this individual point. We find that profiles can yield new insights into the structure of both models and data -- in and out-of-distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-20T23:25:28Z)
• Exploring Sparse Expert Models and Beyond [51.90860155810848]
  Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models can achieve promising results with outrageous large amount of parameters but constant computation cost. We propose a simple method called expert prototyping that splits experts into different prototypes and applies $k$ top-$1$ routing. This strategy improves the model quality but maintains constant computational costs, and our further exploration on extremely large-scale models reflects that it is more effective in training larger models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T16:12:44Z)
• What's the best place for an AI conference, Vancouver or ______: Why completing comparative questions is difficult [22.04829832439774]
  We study the ability of neural LMs to ask (not answer) reasonable questions. We show that accuracy in this fill-in-the-blank task is well-correlated with human judgements of whether a question is reasonable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T14:56:09Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.