arXiv preprint ·
When to Stop Asking: Factor Coverage Bias and LLM Determinability Judgments with Underspecified Information in Medicine
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Clinical decision-making often begins with underspecified information and requires not only gathering missing information but also knowing when to stop. This calls for judging determinability (whether the available information is sufficient for a decision) by considering whether missing information could change the conclusion, not simply the amount of available decision-relevant information. Reliance on this amount as a cue for determinability, which we term \textit{factor coverage bias}, could undermine the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) through premature conclusions or excessive information gathering, such as unnecessary invasive tests. Yet whether LLMs exhibit this bias remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we construct a controlled pairwise benchmark in which LLMs identify the determinable case within each determinable--undeterminable pair. We add a decision-relevant factor to either side while keeping each case's determinability unchanged, and similarly add irrelevant text to distinguish this bias from context-length effects. Adding a relevant factor made LLMs more likely to select the augmented case as determinable even when it remained undeterminable, an effect that persisted with increased reasoning effort, while adding irrelevant text made them less likely to select the augmented case, an effect that reasoning substantially reduced. These findings identify factor coverage bias as a failure mode distinct from context-length effects and a potential risk to LLM trustworthiness. Our work provides an evaluation framework for LLM trustworthiness under underspecification.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
When Better Opportunities Backfire: Service Worker Responses to Parallel AI Deployment in Customer Acquisition
KPHarness: Co-Evolving Knowledge and Probing for Long-Horizon Gaming Harnesses
Safety Offset Learning: When Benign Fine-Tuning Misaligns LLMs
The Router Already Knows
Weighted State Souping for Efficient Long-Context Retrieval
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.