Dissociating Answerability from Extraction in LLM Question Answering over Radiology Reports

arXiv:2610.17576v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Answering questions from radiology reports involves two decisions: whether the report contains an answer and which span gives it. A false answer presents an unsupported claim as fact; an over-abstention hides what the report says. Yet RadQA results are reported as a single F1 that merges both. We propose an evaluation method that separates them, reporting false-answer and over-abstention rates beside F1 and splitting F1 changes into extraction and answerability terms. We apply it to 13 LLMs on the RadQA test set, zero-shot and with three cumulative demonstration sets, the last adding an unanswerable example. Models with similar F1 differed more than twofold in false-answer rate. The unanswerable example changed when models answered, not how well they extracted: 12 of 13 models abstained more often, and three-quarters of the answers they withdrew had F1 $\geq$ 0.5. Within models, false answers showed no clear association with extraction quality, but acting on the decision itself helped: keeping an answer only when enough other models also answered lowered the zero-shot false-answer rate by 4 points without a detectable F1 change. Because the two decisions can change independently, we suggest radiology QA evaluations report them separately, not through F1 alone.

Abstract:Answering questions from radiology reports involves two decisions: whether the report contains an answer and which span gives it. A false answer presents an unsupported claim as fact; an over-abstention hides what the report says. Yet RadQA results are reported as a single F1 that merges both. We propose an evaluation method that separates them, reporting false-answer and over-abstention rates beside F1 and splitting F1 changes into extraction and answerability terms. We apply it to 13 LLMs on the RadQA test set, zero-shot and with three cumulative demonstration sets, the last adding an unanswerable example. Models with similar F1 differed more than twofold in false-answer rate. The unanswerable example changed when models answered, not how well they extracted: 12 of 13 models abstained more often, and three-quarters of the answers they withdrew had F1 $\geq$ 0.5. Within models, false answers showed no clear association with extraction quality, but acting on the decision itself helped: keeping an answer only when enough other models also answered lowered the zero-shot false-answer rate by 4 points without a detectable F1 change. Because the two decisions can change independently, we suggest radiology QA evaluations report them separately, not through F1 alone.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.17576 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.17576v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.17576 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Dissociating Answerability from Extraction in LLM Question Answering over Radiology Reports

Related coverage