arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2603.15840cs.LGcs.AIcs.CLstat.ML
收藏

当稳定性失效:在数据受限的科学决策中LLM的隐藏故障模式

When Stability Fails: Hidden Failure Modes Of LLMS in Data-Constrained Scientific Decision-Making

North Dakota State University(北达科他州立大学)

Nazia Riasat

AI总结:

研究揭示LLM在数据受限科学决策中稳定性不足的问题,通过控制评估框架发现其在正确性、提示敏感性和输出有效性方面的缺陷。

摘要:

大型语言模型(LLM)正被越来越多地用作数据受限科学工作流中的决策支持工具,其中正确性和有效性至关重要。然而,评估实践往往强调重复运行中的稳定性或可重复性。尽管这些特性是理想的,但仅靠稳定性并不能保证在有参考标准的情况下与统计真实值一致。我们引入了一个受控的行为评估框架,明确将LLM决策的四个维度分开:稳定性、正确性、提示敏感性和在固定统计输入下的输出有效性。我们使用一个源自差异表达分析的统计基因优先级任务来评估多个LLM,该任务涉及严格和宽松的显著性阈值、临界排名场景和细微措辞变化。我们的实验表明,LLM可以在运行之间表现出近乎完美的稳定性,同时系统性地偏离统计真实值,宽松阈值下过度选择,对细微提示措辞变化反应敏感,或生成语法上合理的基因标识符,但这些标识符不在输入表中。尽管稳定性反映了重复运行中的鲁棒性,但在结构化科学决策任务中并不保证与统计真实值一致。这些发现强调了在部署LLM到自动化或半自动化科学工作流时,显式的真实值验证和输出有效性检查的重要性。

英文摘要:

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision-support tools in data-constrained scientific workflows, where correctness and validity are critical. However, evaluation practices often emphasize stability or reproducibility across repeated runs. While these properties are desirable, stability alone does not guar- antee agreement with statistical ground truth when such references are available. We introduce a controlled behavioral evaluation framework that explicitly sep- arates four dimensions of LLM decision-making: stability, correctness, prompt sensitivity, and output validity under fixed statistical inputs. We evaluate multi- ple LLMs using a statistical gene prioritization task derived from differential ex- pression analysis across prompt regimes involving strict and relaxed significance thresholds, borderline ranking scenarios, and minor wording variations. Our ex- periments show that LLMs can exhibit near-perfect run-to-run stability while sys- tematically diverging from statistical ground truth, over-selecting under relaxed thresholds, responding sharply to minor prompt wording changes, or producing syntactically plausible gene identifiers absent from the input table. Although sta- bility reflects robustness across repeated runs, it does not guarantee agreement with statistical ground truth in structured scientific decision tasks. These findings highlight the importance of explicit ground-truth validation and output validity checks when deploying LLMs in automated or semi-automated scientific work- flows.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑