WeWorkBuddy

From Small to Large: Assessing Medical Reasoning, Benchmark Contamination, and Model Size in Language Models

arXiv:2611.00460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 per

Read original source
Source reference for From Small to Large: Assessing Medical Reasoning, Benchmark Contamination, and Model Size in Language Models. Screenshot not yet available.
Source record · preview pending · arxiv.orgOpen the source for the full page.

Source record

Research analysis

Research claim

Paper identifier: 2611.00460. Source account: arXiv:2611.00460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 per

Evaluation record

Recent records to compare: “Show HN: Teach a speech model (en) a name by saying it once, on your Mac” (Show HN, Nov 5, 2026); “Human-like cross-language generalisation in deep neural speaker embeddings and its acoustic foundations” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.

What the result supports

Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.

Validity gaps

Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.

Verification plan

Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.