A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00027v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:57:55 GMT
• Title: A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions.<n>We developed a multi-domain red teaming framework evaluating eleven contemporary LLMs across 690 clinically grounded scenarios.<n>Results revealed substantial performance variance, with mean scores ranging from 0.791 to 0.984.
• Score: 34.38896321208398
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice. We developed a multi-domain red teaming framework evaluating eleven contemporary LLMs across 690 clinically grounded scenarios spanning nine domains and over 150 subcategories. Scenarios incorporated adversarial transformations, and responses were assessed using a seven-dimension rubric with LLM-assisted scoring and human-in-the-loop validation. Results revealed substantial performance variance, with mean scores ranging from 0.791 to 0.984. Critically, several high-performing systems produced complete failures in individual safety-critical scenarios, demonstrating that aggregate accuracy masks clinically meaningful risk. The highest-performing systems (X-BAI, GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.1) achieved scores above 0.97 with low variance, while performance varied significantly across domains. Equity-related tasks showed 10-20% error amplification with demographic modifications, and human reviewers identified clinically relevant failures missed by automated evaluation. Our findings demonstrate that performance variance and worst-case failures provide more clinically meaningful reliability indicators than mean accuracy alone, and that hybrid evaluation approaches combining automation with clinician oversight are essential for credible safety assessment.

Related papers

• Enhancing Clinician Decision-Making via Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Expert Fusion for Stroke Rehabilitation [0.32553561239735207]
  We present xAARA: an engine designed to augment rather than replace clinical judgment.<n>xAARA returns ARAT assessments with calibrated uncertainty and explanations across task, movement-phase, and movement-quality levels.<n>In 105 stroke survivors (788 exercises), xAARA achieved 94.2% task accuracy and 81.3% movement-phase accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T09:00:15Z)
• Cerebra: A Multidisciplinary AI Board for Multimodal Dementia Characterization and Risk Assessment [56.62016795093786]
  Cerebra is an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis.<n>It supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete.<n>Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T05:46:45Z)
• LiveClin: A Live Clinical Benchmark without Leakage [50.45415584327275]
  LiveClin is a live benchmark designed for approximating real-world clinical practice.<n>We transform authentic patient cases into complex, multimodal evaluation scenarios that span the entire clinical pathway.<n>Our evaluation of 26 models on LiveClin reveals the profound difficulty of these real-world scenarios, with the top-performing model achieving a Case Accuracy of just 35.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T03:59:46Z)
• Automated Rubrics for Reliable Evaluation of Medical Dialogue Systems [19.880569341968023]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety.<n>We propose a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework designed to automate the generation of instance-specific evaluation rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:40:41Z)
• A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care [5.167350493769989]
  This is the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data.<n>We strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk.<n>Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T11:58:49Z)
• EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
  Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z)
• Beyond Benchmarks: Dynamic, Automatic And Systematic Red-Teaming Agents For Trustworthy Medical Language Models [87.66870367661342]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in AI applications in healthcare.<n>Red-teaming framework that continuously stress-test LLMs can reveal significant weaknesses in four safety-critical domains.<n>A suite of adversarial agents is applied to autonomously mutate test cases, identify/evolve unsafe-triggering strategies, and evaluate responses.<n>Our framework delivers an evolvable, scalable, and reliable safeguard for the next generation of medical AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:44:22Z)
• Benchmarking Chinese Medical LLMs: A Medbench-based Analysis of Performance Gaps and Hierarchical Optimization Strategies [11.0505830548286]
  This study introduces a granular error taxonomy through systematic analysis of top 10 models on MedBench.<n> Evaluation of 10 leading models reveals vulnerabilities, despite achieving 0.86 accuracy in medical knowledge recall.<n>Our analysis uncovers systemic weaknesses in knowledge boundary enforcement and multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T13:28:25Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)

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.