The adoption of large language models (LLMs) to assist clinicians has attracted remarkable attention. Existing works mainly adopt the close-ended question-answering (QA) task with answer options for evaluation. However, many clinical decisions involve answering open-ended questions without pre-set options. To better understand LLMs in the clinic, we construct a benchmark ClinicBench. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. Furthermore, we construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice, e.g., open-ended decision-making, long document processing, and emerging drug analysis. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings. Finally, we invite medical experts to evaluate the clinical usefulness of LLMs

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), aligning LLMs with human values and societal norms to ensure their reliability and safety has become crucial. Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI (CAI) have been proposed for LLM alignment. However, these methods require either heavy human annotations or explicitly pre-defined constitutions, which are labor-intensive and resource-consuming. To overcome these drawbacks, we study constitution-based LLM alignment and propose a data-driven constitution discovery and self-alignment framework called IterAlign. IterAlign leverages red teaming to unveil the weaknesses of an LLM and automatically discovers new constitutions using a stronger LLM. These constitutions are then used to guide self-correction of the base LLM. Such a constitution discovery pipeline can be run iteratively and automatically to discover new constitutions that specifically target the alignment gaps in the current LLM. Empirical results on several safety benchmark datasets and multiple base LLMs show that IterAlign successfully improves truthfulness, helpfulness, harmlessness and honesty, improving the LLM alignment by up to 13.5% in harmlessness.

Current abstractive summarization models often generate inconsistent content, i.e. texts that are not directly inferable from the source document, are not consistent with respect to world knowledge, or are self-contradictory. These inconsistencies motivate a new consistency taxonomy that we define as faithfulness, factuality, and self-supportiveness. However, most recent work on reducing inconsistency in document summarization only focuses on faithfulness detection and correction while ignoring other inconsistency phenomena, which limits the model’s scalability. To improve the general consistency we introduce EnergySum, where we apply the Residual Energy-based Model by designing energy scorers that reflect each type of consistency. These energy scores are utilized in candidate re-ranking during the sampling process. Experiments on XSUM and CNN/DM datasets show that EnergySum mitigates the trade-off between accuracy and consistency.