Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

MedFuzz: Exploring the Robustness of Large Language Models in Medical Question Answering

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.06573 v2 pith:J7TFPIKQ submitted 2024-06-03 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords benchmarkmedicalperformanceassumptionsbenchmarksmedfuzzquestion-answeringsuccessful
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLM) have achieved impressive performance on medical question-answering benchmarks. However, high benchmark accuracy does not imply that the performance generalizes to real-world clinical settings. Medical question-answering benchmarks rely on assumptions consistent with quantifying LLM performance but that may not hold in the open world of the clinic. Yet LLMs learn broad knowledge that can help the LLM generalize to practical conditions regardless of unrealistic assumptions in celebrated benchmarks. We seek to quantify how well LLM medical question-answering benchmark performance generalizes when benchmark assumptions are violated. Specifically, we present an adversarial method that we call MedFuzz (for medical fuzzing). MedFuzz attempts to modify benchmark questions in ways aimed at confounding the LLM. We demonstrate the approach by targeting strong assumptions about patient characteristics presented in the MedQA benchmark. Successful "attacks" modify a benchmark item in ways that would be unlikely to fool a medical expert but nonetheless "trick" the LLM into changing from a correct to an incorrect answer. Further, we present a permutation test technique that can ensure a successful attack is statistically significant. We show how to use performance on a "MedFuzzed" benchmark, as well as individual successful attacks. The methods show promise at providing insights into the ability of an LLM to operate robustly in more realistic settings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Testing for LLM response differences: the case of a composite null consisting of semantically irrelevant query perturbations

    math.ST 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new hypothesis test for binary LLM responses treats semantically equivalent query perturbations as an unknown null set and gives asymptotic validity and consistency guarantees under a uniformity assumption.

  2. MedSentry: Understanding and Mitigating Safety Risks in Medical LLM Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.MA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 5,000-prompt medical safety benchmark reveals that decentralized LLM multi-agent teams resist a malicious insider agent better than shared-pool teams, and a personality-screening defense partially restores safety.

Pith tools