<p>Large frontier models such as GPT-5 and Gemini have demonstrated remarkable performance in a wide range of health application benchmarks. However, underneath the seemingly promising results lie salient growth areas, especially in cutting-edge frontiers such as multimodal reasoning. Here we systematically apply and integrate a series of adversarial stress tests to assess the robustness of flagship models and health benchmarks. Our study reveals prevalent brittleness in the presence of simple adversarial transformations: leading systems can guess the correct answer even with key inputs removed yet may get confused by the slightest prompt alterations while fabricating convincing but flawed reasoning traces. Using clinician-guided rubrics, we demonstrate that popular health benchmarks vary widely in what they truly measure. Our study reveals considerable gaps between benchmark performance and the robustness evidence needed to support claims about multimodal medical reasoning in health applications.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Evaluating the robustness and readiness of large frontier models in health AI applications

  • Yu Gu,
  • Jingjing Fu,
  • Xiaodong Liu,
  • Jeya Maria Jose Valanarasu,
  • Noel C. F. Codella,
  • Reuben Tan,
  • Qianchu Liu,
  • Ying Jin,
  • Sheng Zhang,
  • Jinyu Wang,
  • Rui Wang,
  • Lei Song,
  • Guanghui Qin,
  • Naoto Usuyama,
  • Cliff Wong,
  • Hao Cheng,
  • HoHin Lee,
  • Praneeth Sanapathi,
  • Sarah Hilado,
  • Tristan Naumann,
  • Javier Alvarez-Valle,
  • Jiang Bian,
  • Mu Wei,
  • Khalil Malik,
  • Lidong Zhou,
  • Jianfeng Gao,
  • Eric Horvitz,
  • Matthew P. Lungren,
  • Doug Burger,
  • Eric Topol,
  • Hoifung Poon,
  • Paul Vozila

摘要

Large frontier models such as GPT-5 and Gemini have demonstrated remarkable performance in a wide range of health application benchmarks. However, underneath the seemingly promising results lie salient growth areas, especially in cutting-edge frontiers such as multimodal reasoning. Here we systematically apply and integrate a series of adversarial stress tests to assess the robustness of flagship models and health benchmarks. Our study reveals prevalent brittleness in the presence of simple adversarial transformations: leading systems can guess the correct answer even with key inputs removed yet may get confused by the slightest prompt alterations while fabricating convincing but flawed reasoning traces. Using clinician-guided rubrics, we demonstrate that popular health benchmarks vary widely in what they truly measure. Our study reveals considerable gaps between benchmark performance and the robustness evidence needed to support claims about multimodal medical reasoning in health applications.