arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28592

A collective capability boundary in frontier large language models on guideline-conformant and case-specific oncology decision-making

Zhang Sheng·Jinming Li·Wangyang Chen·Zhiwei Bao·Yu YoSean Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) achieve high scores on medical knowledge examinations, yet real-world oncology is not a knowledge test--it is a sequence of guideline-pathway choices, escalation judgments, and commitments under uncertainty. Existing benchmarks largely measure factual recall, leaving open whether frontier LLMs share decision-path blind spots that combining models cannot fix. We built the Oncology Decision Boundary Benchmark (ODBB)--2,005 oncology decision points across NCCN guidelines and colorectal cancer cases--and evaluated nine frontier LLMs (four closed-source, five open-weight families) released between June 2025 and April 2026. A fully deterministic scorer (zero LLM inference) classified outputs into 14 failure types, independently validated by two oncologists (Cohen's weighted $κ$ = 0.939 and 0.790) on a 225-item stratified sample. Treating the nine as a pooled super-model, 42.1% (Wilson 95% CI 40.0--44.3%) of all items--35.7% of the 1,586 NCCN items and 66.4% of the 419 colorectal-cancer cases--were answered correctly by none, with failures concentrated in choosing between guideline pathways before reasoning within any: a consistent blind spot in clinical meta-judgment that likely requires architectural intervention rather than more training data. Two models tuned for decisiveness (GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview) made unsafe commitments three to five times more often than the seven cautious models without scoring higher. In 3--9% of items, models stated the correct next clinical step yet did not commit to it--failures of decision, not knowledge. Model quality is no longer the primary bottleneck for clinical LLM deployment; the binding constraint is the assumption that any single model can be the sole basis for a clinical decision. Progress requires architectures that detect when a model reaches its competence boundary and route the decision to a clinician.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zhang Sheng, Jinming Li, Wangyang Chen, Zhiwei Bao, Yu YoSean Wang. 2026-06-08. A collective capability boundary in frontier large language models on guideline-conformant and case-specific oncology decision-making. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28592

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

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Meta-ethics and AI: exploring the novel meta-ethical questions in the era of AI

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape of meta-ethics, which has largely centred on human ethics, faces pressures that may significantly reconfigure it. In particular, if future AI systems were to exhibit sufficiently integrated capacities for moral reasoning, moral intentionality, and moral reflection, novel meta-ethical questions would arise concerning what I call "AI's own ethics", as distinct from ethical principles merely imposed on AI by human designers. This paper offers a conditional and methodological framework for identifying the questions that would emerge if such AI systems were to arise. On that basis, the paper distinguishes four domains of meta-ethical inquiry in the era of AI: questions about the nature of human ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of human ethics from the AI perspective; and questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the AI perspective. The paper then considers how some existing mainstream meta-ethical theories (such as cognitivism and non-cognitivism, error theory and success theory, relativism, and objective realism) might illuminate these domains, while arguing that many familiar human-centred formulations of those theories may not transfer straightforwardly to AI cases without substantial revision. The overall conclusion is that the emergence of AI's own ethics would place significant pressure on current frameworks and may require substantial refinement, reconstruction, or reconceptualisation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

Clinical artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in real-world care, yet existing safety mechanisms are poorly suited to reconstructing and learning from individual AI-related errors and near-misses. Aggregate model monitoring can identify performance changes, and traditional patient safety reporting can capture adverse events, but neither is designed to explain how risk emerges across the interaction among AI systems, clinicians, workflows, and institutional controls. We propose AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M), a structured, blameless framework for case-based review of clinical AI failures. The framework combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation and investigator-level reconstruction, tool-in-loop attribution, and corrective-action tracking. Each event is classified across four linked dimensions: Trigger - Mechanism - Clinical Pathway - Corrective Action, separating the condition that exposed a vulnerability from the process that produced risk, its consequence for care, and the remediation assigned. We demonstrate the framework using five illustrative outpatient medication and clinical decision-support cases; two clinician reviewers independently applied all four classification axes and reached agreement across all 20 axis-level classifications. AI M&M is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning. Prospective evaluation across institutions, AI systems, and clinical settings is needed.

cs.AI↗