mFARM: Towards Multi-Faceted Fairness Assessment based on HARMs in Clinical Decision Support

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.02007v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 06:47:57 GMT
• Title: mFARM: Towards Multi-Faceted Fairness Assessment based on HARMs in Clinical Decision Support
• Authors: Shreyash Adappanavar, Krithi Shailya, Gokul S Krishnan, Sriraam Natarajan, Balaraman Ravindran,
• Abstract summary: The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes medical settings poses a critical AI alignment challenge.<n>Existing fairness evaluation methods fall short in these contexts as they typically use simplistic metrics that overlook the multi-dimensional nature of medical harms.<n>We propose a multi-metric framework - Multi-faceted Fairness Assessment based on hARMs ($mFARM$) to audit fairness for three distinct dimensions of disparity.<n>Our findings showcase that the proposed $mFARM$ metrics capture subtle biases more effectively under various settings.
• Score: 10.90604216960609
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes medical settings poses a critical AI alignment challenge, as models can inherit and amplify societal biases, leading to significant disparities. Existing fairness evaluation methods fall short in these contexts as they typically use simplistic metrics that overlook the multi-dimensional nature of medical harms. This also promotes models that are fair only because they are clinically inert, defaulting to safe but potentially inaccurate outputs. To address this gap, our contributions are mainly two-fold: first, we construct two large-scale, controlled benchmarks (ED-Triage and Opioid Analgesic Recommendation) from MIMIC-IV, comprising over 50,000 prompts with twelve race x gender variants and three context tiers. Second, we propose a multi-metric framework - Multi-faceted Fairness Assessment based on hARMs ($mFARM$) to audit fairness for three distinct dimensions of disparity (Allocational, Stability, and Latent) and aggregate them into an $mFARM$ score. We also present an aggregated Fairness-Accuracy Balance (FAB) score to benchmark and observe trade-offs between fairness and prediction accuracy. We empirically evaluate four open-source LLMs (Mistral-7B, BioMistral-7B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Bio-LLaMA3-8B) and their finetuned versions under quantization and context variations. Our findings showcase that the proposed $mFARM$ metrics capture subtle biases more effectively under various settings. We find that most models maintain robust performance in terms of $mFARM$ score across varying levels of quantization but deteriorate significantly when the context is reduced. Our benchmarks and evaluation code are publicly released to enhance research in aligned AI for healthcare.

Related papers

• When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation [18.338933046286257]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to address diverse problems, including medical queries.<n>LLMs often perform poorly in medical contexts, potentially leading to harmful misguidance for users.<n>This paper focuses on fine-tuning the Llama 2 7B, a transformer-based, decoder-only model, using transcripts from real patient-doctor interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:09:43Z)
• MedAlign: A Synergistic Framework of Multimodal Preference Optimization and Federated Meta-Cognitive Reasoning [52.064286116035134]
  We develop MedAlign, a framework to ensure visually accurate LVLM responses for Medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA)<n>We first propose a multimodal Direct Preference Optimization (mDPO) objective to align preference learning with visual context.<n>We then design a Retrieval-Aware Mixture-of-Experts (RA-MoE) architecture that utilizes image and text similarity to route queries to a specialized and context-augmented LVLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T02:11:05Z)
• Shallow Robustness, Deep Vulnerabilities: Multi-Turn Evaluation of Medical LLMs [9.291589998223696]
  We introduce MedQA-Followup, a framework for evaluating multi-turn robustness in medical question answering.<n>Using controlled interventions on the MedQA dataset, we evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>We find that while models perform reasonably well under shallow perturbations, they exhibit severe vulnerabilities in multi-turn settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T08:04:18Z)
• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• MEGAN: Mixture of Experts for Robust Uncertainty Estimation in Endoscopy Videos [2.969789372985515]
  We propose MEGAN, a Multi-Expert Gating Network that aggregates uncertainty estimates and predictions from multiple AI experts.<n>MEGAN's gating network optimally combines predictions and uncertainties from each EDL model, enhancing overall prediction confidence and calibration.<n>In large-scale prospective Ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trial, MEGAN achieved a 3.5% improvement in F1-score and a 30.5% reduction in Expected Error (ECE) compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T07:42:01Z)
• Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias [59.79548223686273]
  We introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate Reasoning Theater Bias (RTB)<n>We investigate six bias types including Simple Cues and Fake Chain-of-Thought.<n>We identify'shallow reasoning'-plausible but flawed arguments-as the most potent form of RTB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• Revisiting Reliability in the Reasoning-based Pose Estimation Benchmark [27.134554623769898]
  The reasoning-based pose estimation (RPE) benchmark has emerged as a widely adopted evaluation standard for pose-aware large language models (MLLMs)<n>We identified critical and benchmark-quality issues that hinder fair and consistent quantitative evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T17:33:11Z)
• Is Your Model Fairly Certain? Uncertainty-Aware Fairness Evaluation for LLMs [7.197702136906138]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness.<n> observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset.<n>We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T20:45:18Z)
• Reliable Decision Support with LLMs: A Framework for Evaluating Consistency in Binary Text Classification Applications [0.7124971549479361]
  This study introduces a framework for evaluating consistency in large language model (LLM) binary text classification.<n>We determine sample size requirements, develop metrics for invalid responses, and evaluate intra- and inter-rater reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T21:12:58Z)
• Benchmarking Open-Source Large Language Models on Healthcare Text Classification Tasks [2.7729041396205014]
  This study evaluates the classification performance of five open-source large language models (LLMs)<n>We report precision, recall, and F1 scores with 95% confidence intervals for all model-task combinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T12:51:52Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• ACE-$M^3$: Automatic Capability Evaluator for Multimodal Medical Models [34.81544597731073]
  We introduce ACE-$M3$, an open-sourced textbfAutomatic textbfCapability textbfEvaluator for textbfMultimodal textbfMedical textbfModels.<n>It first utilizes a branch-merge architecture to provide both detailed analysis and a concise final score based on standard medical evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T05:15:43Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibration [65.10149293133846]
  Language Models (LMs) have shown promising performance in natural language generation. It is crucial to correctly quantify their uncertainty in responding to given inputs. We develop a novel and practical framework, termed $Rank$-$Calibration$, to assess uncertainty and confidence measures for LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:31:05Z)
• MEDFAIR: Benchmarking Fairness for Medical Imaging [44.73351338165214]
  MEDFAIR is a framework to benchmark the fairness of machine learning models for medical imaging. We find that the under-studied issue of model selection criterion can have a significant impact on fairness outcomes. We make recommendations for different medical application scenarios that require different ethical principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T16:30:47Z)

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.