aiqbench analysis
This study introduces a psychophysics-inspired benchmark revealing that large language models exhibit partial metacognitive sensitivity in medical diagnostics, where confidence levels correlate with evidence strength but fail specifically in moderate-conflict cases involving Alzheimer-type versus depression-related cognitive impairments. The findings highlight critical calibration failures when information is missing or contradictory, suggesting that direct measurement of confidence quality is necessary rather than inferring it from general accuracy metrics. This research advances the evaluation framework for clinical AI by isolating localized uncertainty behaviors essential for safe medical deployment.
Large Language Models Show Metacognitive Sensitivity in Medical Reasoning
arXiv:2608.14552v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and used in medicine, but clinical usefulness depends on answer accuracy and whether confidence tracks evidence quality and uncertainty. We developed a controlled, psychophysics-inspired clinical benchmark to test diagnostic choice and confidence behavior in a medical LLM. The benchmark focused on probable Alzheimer-type neurocognitive disorder (AT-NCD) versus depression-related cognitive impairment (DRCI). We generated 45 synthetic vignettes varying evidence strength, conflicting evidence, and missing information. Each vignette was presented under three prompt variants, yielding 135 trials. In a pilot run with gpt-4.1-nano, all trials produced valid structured outputs. Across forced-choice trials, diagnostic accuracy was 93.5%, mean confidence was 78.4%, and AUROC2 was 0.876. Confidence increased with evidence distance from the diagnostic boundary, decreased when information was missing, and remained higher on correct than incorrect trials after adjustment for evidence strength and prompt format. These findings indicate partial metacognitive sensitivity rather than globally uninformative confidence. However, errors clustered in moderate, conflicting AT-NCD cases, where the model shifted toward DRCI and retained more confidence than empirical accuracy justified. Model comparison suggested that confidence quality should be measured directly rather than inferred from benchmark accuracy or model capability alone. This study establishes a reproducible framework for evaluating evidence sensitivity, metacognitive sensitivity, and localized calibration failure in medical LLMs.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and used in medicine, but clinical usefulness depends on answer accuracy and whether confidence tracks evidence quality and uncertainty. We developed a controlled, psychophysics-inspired clinical benchmark to test diagnostic choice and confidence behavior in a medical LLM. The benchmark focused on probable Alzheimer-type neurocognitive disorder (AT-NCD) versus depression-related cognitive impairment (DRCI). We generated 45 synthetic vignettes varying evidence strength, conflicting evidence, and missing information. Each vignette was presented under three prompt variants, yielding 135 trials. In a pilot run with gpt-4.1-nano, all trials produced valid structured outputs. Across forced-choice trials, diagnostic accuracy was 93.5%, mean confidence was 78.4%, and AUROC2 was 0.876. Confidence increased with evidence distance from the diagnostic boundary, decreased when information was missing, and remained higher on correct than incorrect trials after adjustment for evidence strength and prompt format. These findings indicate partial metacognitive sensitivity rather than globally uninformative confidence. However, errors clustered in moderate, conflicting AT-NCD cases, where the model shifted toward DRCI and retained more confidence than empirical accuracy justified. Model comparison suggested that confidence quality should be measured directly rather than inferred from benchmark accuracy or model capability alone. This study establishes a reproducible framework for evaluating evidence sensitivity, metacognitive sensitivity, and localized calibration failure in medical LLMs.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.14552 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.14552v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14552 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 303 words
Related coverage

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · May 21, 2026