Abstract
Trustworthy biomedical AI requires reliable action selection when evidence is missing, stale, conflicting, or late, not only accurate answers on static inputs. We instantiate an episode-level evaluation protocol as 400 synthetic healthcare workflow episodes: 40 hand-authored semantic seeds across four task classes, two surface parameterizations, and five controlled variants, scored on ANSWER/ASK CLARIFICATION/ABSTAIN/ESCALATE under a pre-declared 5:1 missed-versus-unnecessary escalation cost. Reference actions are single-author study-policy labels, not clinician-adjudicated ground truth. Across five open-weight configurations (1.7B--9.7B), clean decision accuracy reaches 0.97, yet uncertainty-prompted models miss 32--97% of required escalations. The stronger 9.7B configuration narrows but does not remove the gap, falling from 0.97 clean accuracy to 0.78 under conflict. Verbalized confidence is inconsistent (ECE 0.10--0.54; failure AUROC 0.48--0.77), and a development-tuned confidence-only policy yields no utility gain. A transparent workflow-aware controller improves 5:1 utility for every model and reduces missed escalations to 0.12--0.24, at specificity 0.83--0.93. However, a 30-concept lexical stress test reduces each rule detector's recall from 1.00 on trigger phrases to 0.00 on unseen paraphrases, limiting the controller claim to this benchmark. Seed-clustered statistics, ablations, cross-task transfer, raw outputs, and manifests are packaged for audit. The results motivate explicit workflow-state evaluation while showing that apparently effective routing controls need their own generalization tests.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21270
