analiza aiqbench
The paper finds that commercial LLM deployments returned differing assessments for the same regulatory-compliance request, even with deterministic sampling settings, and that output variation depended on how a model was served, including GPU model and inference-engine scheduling. Its positive result is a pipeline that was byte-identical across reruns and machines for the tested documents, but that was achieved by making every stage, including OCR, embedding, and retrieval, deterministic. Readers deploying LLMs in audited workflows should treat serving configuration as part of the model's behavior and record it accordingly.
Making every stage of medical device document assessment with large language models deterministic
arXiv:2610.21300v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: To show that a medical device complies with regulation, experts judge whether documents and records meet each requirement and record the judgment for others to verify. For each assessment item that experts define, large language models could prepare a preliminary assessment: a label such as Satisfied or Not satisfied, a reason and quoted evidence. We sent fourteen commercial deployments of such models (seven models from three providers, through six routes) the same request repeatedly, with the deterministic sampling settings each accepted; every deployment returned differing assessments for at least one request, and in twelve the label changed. Reducing reasoning where the interface allows it did not reduce the variation, and prompts of retrieved passages removed it only for the smallest models. The same open-weight model was reproducible or not depending only on how it was served. A pipeline we built to be deterministic at every stage -- text extraction and optical character recognition (OCR), chunking, embedding, indexing, retrieval and inference -- returned byte-identical output at each stage across reruns, interruptions, edits, machines of one graphics processing unit (GPU) model and days, for blood glucose meter and infusion pump documents. OCR, embedding and approximate retrieval varied when their own serving was not made invariant, and outputs changed with the GPU model and with the inference engine's scheduling settings, which therefore belong in the recorded configuration. End-to-end determinism is achievable and gives a testable basis for audit and change control.
Abstract:To show that a medical device complies with regulation, experts judge whether documents and records meet each requirement and record the judgment for others to verify. For each assessment item that experts define, large language models could prepare a preliminary assessment: a label such as Satisfied or Not satisfied, a reason and quoted evidence. We sent fourteen commercial deployments of such models (seven models from three providers, through six routes) the same request repeatedly, with the deterministic sampling settings each accepted; every deployment returned differing assessments for at least one request, and in twelve the label changed. Reducing reasoning where the interface allows it did not reduce the variation, and prompts of retrieved passages removed it only for the smallest models. The same open-weight model was reproducible or not depending only on how it was served. A pipeline we built to be deterministic at every stage -- text extraction and optical character recognition (OCR), chunking, embedding, indexing, retrieval and inference -- returned byte-identical output at each stage across reruns, interruptions, edits, machines of one graphics processing unit (GPU) model and days, for blood glucose meter and infusion pump documents. OCR, embedding and approximate retrieval varied when their own serving was not made invariant, and outputs changed with the GPU model and with the inference engine's scheduling settings, which therefore belong in the recorded configuration. End-to-end determinism is achievable and gives a testable basis for audit and change control.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2610.21300 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.21300v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21300 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 336 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026

Forbes Asia 100 To Watch 2026
forbes.com · 24 aug. 2026

Defence And UK Quantum: Who Buys, Who Builds, And What Has Been Tested
Quantum Zeitgeist · 15 oct. 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · 16 sept. 2026