Tug of Watts: A study on the Energy - Accuracy Trade-off of Large Language Models on Medical Question Answering Tasks

Benchmark scores tell us what an LLM can do, but not how much energy is required to deliver that capability. We directly measure this trade-off for 86 open-weight model checkpoints, evaluated on seven benchmarks and six hardware platforms ranging from a consumer GPU to an eight-GPU server. We find large differences in energy efficiency even among models with similar capability. Most configurations lie away from the score--energy Pareto frontier: they use a median of 2.6--4.8$\times$ more energy than another configuration that scores at least as well, with differences reaching 27$\times$. Reasoning can improve capability, but enabling thinking increases energy by about 3.7$\times$ on average, and the benefit depends strongly on the model family and output budget. Generated-token count is also an imperfect proxy for energy, misordering 18--24% of model pairs. In contrast, FP8 reduces energy by roughly a quarter with little change in score, while changing hardware largely rescales energy without changing the relative ranking of models. These results show that capability alone gives an incomplete picture of efficiency. We argue that benchmark scores should be reported together with measured energy consumption under a specified serving regime and output budget.

Large language models (LLMs) now answer medical exam questions at or above expert level, but it is unclear whether such scores reflect clinical competence, or are instead affected by the format of the questions being asked (e.g., multiple-choice versus open-ended), prior exposure to the benchmarks, and the difficulty of the questions. These benchmarks are also public and widely used online, which may be resulting in LLM memorization. Models may perform better on questions that they have seen before. It is also not evident whether smaller models, which are more locally deployable in HIPAA-compliant hospital settings, have achieved human performance. In this study, we evaluate fourteen current models from six leading providers, one smaller and one larger model from each provider with two additional open-weight models, on 3,076 questions from four medical benchmarks (MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and MedBullets) under standard multiple choice, the same questions with the answer choices withheld, and reconstruction of a hidden question from its choices alone. In the standard multiple-choice setting, the strongest models exceed the human-expert baseline on MedQA-USMLE and PubMedQA, but the smaller models trail their larger models by 8.7 percentage points and only two of the six pass the human-expert bar on the licensing examination. Withholding the answer choices, however, makes every model struggle: mean accuracy falls from 82.3% to 50.9%, and the two largest drops belong to the medically specialised models. On memorization, the strongest models reconstruct one question in four from the answer choices alone, yet accuracy holds on the questions they cannot reconstruct. We further weigh accuracy against inference cost and test whether ensembling several models improves medical question answering.

Incorporating large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering demands more than high average accuracy: a model that returns substantively different answers each time it is queried is not a reliable medical tool. Online health communities such as Reddit have become a primary source of medical information for millions of users, yet they remain highly susceptible to misinformation; deploying LLMs as assistants in these settings amplifies the need for output consistency alongside correctness. We present a practical, open-source evaluation framework for assessing small, locally-deployable open-weight LLMs on medical question answering, treating reproducibility as a first-class metric alongside lexical and semantic accuracy. Our pipeline computes eight quality metrics, including BERTScore, ROUGE-L, and an LLM-as-judge rubric, together with two within-model reproducibility metrics derived from repeated inference (N=10 runs per question). Evaluating three models (Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 3 12B, MedGemma 1.5 4B) on 50 MedQuAD questions (N=1,500 total responses) reveals that despite low-temperature generation (T=0.2), self-agreement across runs reaches at most 0.20, while 87-97% of all outputs per model are unique -- a safety gap that single-pass benchmarks entirely miss. The clinically fine-tuned MedGemma 1.5 4B underperforms the larger general-purpose models on both quality and reproducibility; however, because MedGemma is also the smallest model, this comparison confounds domain fine-tuning with model scale. We describe the methodology in sufficient detail for practitioners to replicate or extend the evaluation for their own model-selection workflows. All code and data pipelines are available at https://github.com/aviad-buskila/llm_medical_reproducibility.