analiza aiqbench
This paper reframes reinforcement learning in healthcare by proposing an "evidence ladder" that distinguishes between retrospective optimization and prospective clinical intervention. It critically addresses the transferability gap where high historical scores do not guarantee improved patient outcomes, urging a shift toward evaluating RL policies within dynamic sociotechnical systems. The work offers essential reporting practices for cumulative evaluation as these models move from theoretical frameworks to routine care settings.
The Evidence Ladder for Reinforcement Learning in Healthcare: From Retrospective Policies to Trusted Interventions
arXiv:2609.23374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a natural language for healthcare decisions whose conse- quences unfold over time, yet most reported progress remains far from routine intervention. Ex- isting surveys organize the field by algorithm or clinical application. We instead review healthcare RL through an evidence ladder: problem formulation, retrospective identification, policy estima- tion, stress testing, prospective evaluation, and lifecycle monitoring. This view connects clinical treatment, patient engagement, and health-system operations while exposing a recurring gap: evi- dence that a policy scores well in a historical dataset is not evidence that it will improve care. We synthesize the assumptions and failure modes at each rung, identify what evidence can and can- not transfer across settings, and propose reporting practices for cumulative evaluation. Restless bandits are included as one special case, not as the organizing framework. The central lesson is that healthcare RL should be evaluated as an intervention embedded in a changing sociotechnical system, rather than only as an optimizer of a retrospective reward.
Abstract:Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a natural language for healthcare decisions whose conse- quences unfold over time, yet most reported progress remains far from routine intervention. Ex- isting surveys organize the field by algorithm or clinical application. We instead review healthcare RL through an evidence ladder: problem formulation, retrospective identification, policy estima- tion, stress testing, prospective evaluation, and lifecycle monitoring. This view connects clinical treatment, patient engagement, and health-system operations while exposing a recurring gap: evi- dence that a policy scores well in a historical dataset is not evidence that it will improve care. We synthesize the assumptions and failure modes at each rung, identify what evidence can and can- not transfer across settings, and propose reporting practices for cumulative evaluation. Restless bandits are included as one special case, not as the organizing framework. The central lesson is that healthcare RL should be evaluated as an intervention embedded in a changing sociotechnical system, rather than only as an optimizer of a retrospective reward.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.23374 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.23374v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23374 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 · 256 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Assessing Information Ecosystems : How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid Threats
carnegieendowment.org · 5 aug. 2026
[AINews] OpenAI DevDay 2026: Dots, 6.1 Sol, Ultrafast, Decisions API, Agents API, Spaces, Marketplace, and 1.2 Billion ChatGPT WAU
Latent Space · 30 sept. 2026

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · 12 sept. 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026