When to Stop Asking: Factor Coverage Bias and LLM Determinability Judgments with Underspecified Information in Medicine

Clinical decisions are often required under incomplete information. Clinical experts must identify whether available information is sufficient for judgment, as both premature conclusion and unnecessary abstention can compromise patient safety. To evaluate this capability of large language models (LLMs), we developed ClinDet-Bench, a benchmark based on clinical scoring systems that decomposes incomplete-information scenarios into determinable and undeterminable conditions. Identifying determinability requires considering all hypotheses about missing information, including unlikely ones, and verifying whether the conclusion holds across them. We find that recent LLMs fail to identify determinability under incomplete information, producing both premature judgments and excessive abstention, despite correctly explaining the underlying scoring knowledge and performing well under complete information. These findings suggest that existing benchmarks are insufficient to evaluate the safety of LLMs in clinical settings. ClinDet-Bench provides a framework for evaluating determinability recognition, leading to appropriate abstention, with potential applicability to medicine and other high-stakes domains, and is publicly available.

Medical large language model (LLM) evaluations rely on simplified, exam-style benchmarks that rarely reflect the ambiguity of real-world medical inquiries. We introduce the CLinical Evaluation of Ambiguity and Reliability (CLEAR) framework, which assesses how decision-space presentation, ambiguity, and uncertainty affect LLMs' reasoning on medical benchmarks. CLEAR systematically perturbs (1) the number of plausible answer options, (2) the presence of a ground truth or abstention option, and (3) the semantic framing of answer options. Applying CLEAR on three benchmarks evaluated across 17 LLMs reveals three notable limitations of existing evaluation methods. First, increasing the number of plausible answers degrades a model's ability to identify the correct answer and abstain against incorrect ones. Second, this lack of caution intensifies as the framing of abstention shifts from assertive rejection like "None of the Above" to uncertainty admission like "I don't know" (IDK). Notably, just including IDK in the answer space increases incorrect answer selections. Lastly, we formalize the performance gap between identifying the correct answer and abstaining from incorrect ones as the humility deficit, which worsens with model scale. Our findings reveal limitations in standard medical benchmarks and underscore that scaling alone does not resolve LLM reliability issues.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks. However, their reliability under uncertainty remains poorly understood which raises critical concerns for deployment in high-stakes clinical settings. In such environments, incorrect predictions are inherently risky, but confident incorrect predictions can be particularly harmful as they may mislead clinical decision-making. In this paper, we conduct a systematic behavioral analysis of LLMs under clinical information uncertainty. We propose an evaluation framework based on the MedMCQA dataset consisting of two complementary uncertainty settings. First, we introduce linguistic uncertainty cues through prompt modifications to simulate ambiguous clinical contexts. Second, we construct an answer removal setting, wherein the correct option is deliberately excluded mandating the model to recognize insufficient information and abstain. We analyze both model accuracy and confidence behavior using multiple calibration metrics including calibration gap, Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and Unsafe Confident Error Rate (UCER) across 500 medical questions. Our results reveal a consistent failure mode, i.e., although accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, model confidence remains misaligned with accuracy. This leads to a substantial increase in unsafe confident errors, indicating that model confidence remains largely insensitive to clinically meaningful information loss. Furthermore, we observe significant variation across models in their ability to abstain when the correct answer is unavailable, with some models persistently producing high confidence hallucinated answers. These findings expose critical limitations in the epistemic reliability of current LLMs and highlight the need for uncertainty aware evaluation methods prior to their deployment in clinical workflows.