Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.40318

Decision and System One models in rheumatology: accuracy and calibration on specialty-training examination questions and diagnostic case vignettes

Alfredo Madrid-García·Diego Benavent·Fabian Lechner·Phillip Kremer·Johannes Knitza·Beatriz Merino-Barbancho
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and calibration of Decision and System One models on rheumatology examination questions and diagnostic vignettes. Methods: Two benchmarks were analysed: 172 rheumatology questions from Spanish specialty-training examinations (expanded RheumaMIR dataset) in Spanish and English, and 70 English diagnostic vignettes from RheumBench with 5-18 candidate diagnoses, 52 of which included the reference diagnosis. Four System One models (Jev 1.13, Clef, Microsoft-Decision-1, Laya) and GPT-6 Luna (OpenAI Decisions API) were compared with GPT-6 Sol and two local generative models. The primary outcome was accuracy; secondary outcomes included calibration, discrimination, accuracy of answers with probability >=0.90 and language differences. Results: In RheumaMIR, Jev's accuracy was 93.0% in Spanish and 91.9% in English, below GPT-6 Sol (99.4%; Holm-adjusted P<=0.005); GPT-6 Luna reached 97.7%, Clef 91.9-93.0% and Microsoft-Decision-1 86.0-87.8%, without detectable language differences. Jev's answers with probability >=0.90 (76-77% of answers) were 98.5% correct. In RheumBench, accuracy was lower: GPT-6 Sol 76.9%, GPT-6 Luna 63.5%, Clef 59.6%, Jev 50.0% and Microsoft-Decision-1 40.4% (each System One model below GPT-6 Sol, Holm-adjusted P<=0.045; chance 9.6%). Jev became overconfident (mean probability 0.659; over/underconfidence index +0.159), and its answers with probability >=0.90 (25% of cases) were 84.6% correct, against 95.5% for GPT-6 Luna (42%). Laya performed near chance in both benchmarks. Conclusion: The best-performing System One models were highly accurate on examination questions but less accurate on diagnostic vignettes, remaining below GPT-6 Sol. Jev's high-confidence predictions were less reliable on vignettes, highlighting the need for task-specific evaluation and calibration.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alfredo Madrid-García, Diego Benavent, Fabian Lechner, Phillip Kremer, Johannes Knitza, Beatriz Merino-Barbancho. 2026-10-29. Decision and System One models in rheumatology: accuracy and calibration on specialty-training examination questions and diagnostic case vignettes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40318

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Statistical Methods to Pre-Trained Models; A Survey on Automatic Speech Recognition for Resource Scarce Urdu Language

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology has witnessed significant advancements in recent years, revolutionizing human-computer interactions. While major languages have benefited from these developments, lesser-resourced languages like Urdu face unique challenges. This paper provides an extensive exploration of the dynamic landscape of ASR research, focusing particularly on the resource-constrained Urdu language, which is widely spoken across South Asian nations. It outlines current research trends, technological advancements, and potential directions for future studies in Urdu ASR, aiming to pave the way for forthcoming researchers interested in this domain. By leveraging contemporary technologies, analyzing existing datasets, and evaluating effective algorithms and tools, the paper seeks to shed light on the unique challenges and opportunities associated with Urdu language processing and its integration into the broader field of speech research.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Joint Detection of Fraud and Concept Drift inOnline Conversations with LLM-Assisted Judgment

Detecting fake interactions in digital communication platforms remains a challenging and insufficiently addressed problem. These interactions may appear as harmless spam or escalate into sophisticated scam attempts, making it difficult to flag malicious intent early. Traditional detection methods often rely on static anomaly detection techniques that fail to adapt to dynamic conversational shifts. One key limitation is the misinterpretation of benign topic transitions referred to as concept drift as fraudulent behavior, leading to either false alarms or missed threats. We propose a two stage detection framework that first identifies suspicious conversations using a tailored ensemble classification model. To improve the reliability of detection, we incorporate a concept drift analysis step using a One Class Drift Detector (OCDD) to isolate conversational shifts within flagged dialogues. When drift is detected, a large language model (LLM) assesses whether the shift indicates fraudulent manipulation or a legitimate topic change. In cases where no drift is found, the behavior is inferred to be spam like. We validate our framework using a dataset of social engineering chat scenarios and demonstrate its practical advantages in improving both accuracy and interpretability for real time fraud detection. To contextualize the trade offs, we compare our modular approach against a Dual LLM baseline that performs detection and judgment using different language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SAFE: An LLM-as-Verifier Framework for Evidence-Grounded Multi-Hop Reasoning

Multi-hop QA benchmarks often reward Large Language Models (LLMs) for spurious correctness, where models reach correct answers through invalid intermediate reasoning. We propose SAFE, an LLM-as-verifier framework for evidence-grounded multi-hop QA. Rather than judging only the final answer after generation, SAFE verifies reasoning during generation by checking intermediate steps against the provided passages and previous reasoning trajectory. To make this process checkable, SAFE decomposes reasoning into atomic, evidence-grounded units represented with Knowledge Graph (KG) triples. At train-time, SAFE verifies benchmark supervision under KG-grounded constraints and constructs reliable verifier training data. At inference-time, an external verifier checks each generated step, identifies invalid reasoning, and provides correction feedback before errors propagate. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks, SAFE improves accuracy by 8.8 pp on average. These results show that evidence-grounded multi-hop QA benefits from shifting LLM-based evaluation from post-hoc answer judgment to stepwise reasoning verification.

cs.CL↗