Despite their general capabilities, LLMs still struggle on biomedicalNER tasks, which are difficult due to the presence of specialized terminology and lack of training data. In this work we set out to improve LLM performance on biomedical NER in limited data settings via a new knowledge augmentation approach which incorporates definitions of relevant concepts on-the-fly. During this process, to provide a test bed for knowledge augmentation, we perform a comprehensive exploration of prompting strategies. Our experiments show that definition augmentation is useful for both open source and closed LLMs.For example, it leads to a relative improvement of 15% (on average) in GPT-4 performance (F1) across all (six) of our test datasets. We conduct extensive ablations and analyses to demonstrate that our performance improvements stem from adding relevant definitional knowledge. We find that careful prompting strategies also improve LLM performance, allowing them to outperform fine-tuned language models in few-shot settings. To facilitate future research in this direction, we release our code at https://github.com/allenai/beacon.

Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform a wide range of tasks given natural language instructions to do so, but they are sensitive to how such instructions are phrased. This issue is especially concerning in healthcare, as clinicians are unlikely to be experienced prompt engineers and the potential consequences of inaccurate outputs are heightened in this domain. This raises a practical question: How robust are instruction-tuned LLMs to natural variations in the instructions provided for clinical NLP tasks? We collect prompts from medical doctors across a range of tasks and quantify the sensitivity of seven LLMs—some general, others specialized—to natural (i.e., non-adversarial) instruction phrasings. We find that performance varies substantially across all models, and that—perhaps surprisingly—domain-specific models explicitly trained on clinical data are especially brittle, compared to their general domain counterparts. Further, arbitrary phrasing differences can affect fairness, e.g., valid but distinct instructions for mortality prediction yield a range both in overall performance, and in terms of differences between demographic groups.