arXiv subjects

Sreenath Madathil

Publications and source records attributed to Sreenath Madathil.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Uncertainty-Aware Calibrated Clinical Text Classification with Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly used for clinical text classification, where overconfident misclassifications can directly affect patient care. Existing black-box uncertainty methods attach a confidence score to a fixed LLM prediction using softmax probabilities, verbalised confidence, prompt agreement, or generation consistency. These signals are often poorly calibrated and offer no mechanism for combining model evidence with prior clinical belief. We instead formulate closed-set clinical classification as likelihood-free posterior inference over diagnostic hypotheses. A prompt-conditioned LLM is treated as a class-conditional stochastic simulator: for each candidate diagnosis it generates synthetic clinical descriptions, which are compared with the observed case in an embedding summary space. Sequential Monte Carlo Approximate Bayesian Computation then yields a posterior over diagnoses from which both the prediction and its uncertainty are derived. We instantiate three variants spanning a cost-fidelity spectrum: multinomial SMC (M-SMC), Dirichlet SMC (D-SMC), and an amortised Dirichlet posterior network (ABI) for deployment-time inference. Across three clinical benchmarks and six open LLMs, the inferred posterior separates correct predictions from errors more sharply than black-box confidence, with misclassification-detection AUROC on MultiCare of 0.923 for M-SMC against 0.760 for softmax and 0.584 for a consistency baseline. The posterior also accepts an explicit clinician prior, recovering the correct diagnosis from a deliberately misleading one, and remains diffuse on out-of-distribution presentations. We release OLB-300, an expert-validated clinical uncertainty-quantification benchmark of oral-lesion vignettes.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Consistent but Miscalibrated: Evaluating LLM Limitations for Risk Communication in Natural Language

LLMs are increasingly deployed as post-hoc explainers of AI-generated outputs, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably communicate probabilistic information in natural language. For this role to be viable, models must produce identical verbal descriptions for identical inputs, and select descriptions that accurately reflect the magnitude of the underlying numerical quantities. We evaluate whether nine LLMs meet these requirements within a two-stage prediction pipeline, in which an upstream model has produced probabilistic outputs characterized by their likelihood and uncertainty, and LLMs are tasked with selecting an appropriate verbal descriptor for each. We simulate predictions from an upstream model by taking samples from a Beta distribution parameterized by its mode and prior sample size. We then prompt LLMs to explain these predictions under six domain contexts and with ten temperature settings, and repeating each experiment ten times. We find that LLMs are generally consistent but miscalibrated, with substantially weaker performance on uncertainty than on likelihood tasks. Providing models with precomputed summary statistics (mode and prior sample size) reduced sensitivity to contextual framing but did not resolve the underlying miscalibration, suggesting that the bottleneck resides in the verbalization step itself. These findings indicate that current LLMs do not yet constitute reliable zero-shot standalone risk communication tools for probabilistic predictions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Humans and LLMs Diverge on Probabilistic Inferences

Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.

cs.CL↗