ClinDet-Bench: Beyond Abstention, Evaluating Judgment Determinability of LLMs in Clinical Decision-Making
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Clinical decisions are often required under incomplete information. Clinical experts must identify whether available information is sufficient for judgment, as both premature conclusion and unnecessary abstention can compromise patient safety. To evaluate this capability of large language models (LLMs), we developed ClinDet-Bench, a benchmark based on clinical scoring systems that decomposes incomplete-information scenarios into determinable and undeterminable conditions. Identifying determinability requires considering all hypotheses about missing information, including unlikely ones, and verifying whether the conclusion holds across them. We find that recent LLMs fail to identify determinability under incomplete information, producing both premature judgments and excessive abstention, despite correctly explaining the underlying scoring knowledge and performing well under complete information. These findings suggest that existing benchmarks are insufficient to evaluate the safety of LLMs in clinical settings. ClinDet-Bench provides a framework for evaluating determinability recognition, leading to appropriate abstention, with potential applicability to medicine and other high-stakes domains, and is publicly available.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2026.
Builds on
14 of 58 references.
References · 14
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
- 2020What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Examscited by 1,324
- 2022Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questionscited by 911
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 731
- 2021A Dataset of Information-Seeking Questions and Answers Anchored in Research Paperscited by 475
- 2023The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"cited by 399
- 2023LLM Self Defense: By Self Examination, LLMs Know They Are Being Trickedcited by 226
- 2023Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensemblingcited by 113
- 2022DisentQA: Disentangling Parametric and Contextual Knowledge with Counterfactual Question Answeringcited by 93
- 2023Are Large Language Models Really Good Logical Reasoners? A Comprehensive Evaluation and Beyondcited by 65
- 2023Evaluating GPT-4 and ChatGPT on Japanese Medical Licensing Examinationscited by 63
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correctioncited by 4
- 2026CliniCARE-Bench: Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHRcited by 1
- 2026Unknown is not normal: separating language-model extraction from rule-based decision logic for clinical risk scorescited by 0
- 2026Unknown is not normal: separating language-model extraction from rule-based decision logic for clinical risk scores28 Sep 2026
- 2026CliniCARE-Bench: Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR7 Aug 2026
- 2026Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correction6 Apr 2026