Abinitha Gourabathina

Abinitha Gourabathina, Hyewon Jeong, Teya Bergamaschi et al. · mit

Deep learning models trained to optimize average accuracy often exhibit systematic failures on particular subpopulations. In real world settings, the subpopulations most affected by such disparities are frequently unlabeled or unknown, thereby motivating the development of methods that are performant on sensitive subgroups without being pre-specified. However, existing group-robust methods typically assume prior knowledge of relevant subgroups, using group annotations for training or model selection. We propose Low-rank Error Informed Adaptation (LEIA), a simple two-stage method that improves group robustness by identifying a low-dimensional subspace in the representation space where model errors concentrate. LEIA restricts adaptation to this error-informed subspace via a low-rank adjustment to the classifier logits, directly targeting latent failure modes without modifying the backbone or requiring group labels. Using five real-world datasets, we analyze group robustness under three settings: (1) truly no knowledge of subgroup relevance, (2) partial knowledge of subgroup relevance, and (3) full knowledge of subgroup relevance. Across all settings, LEIA consistently improves worst-group performance while remaining fast, parameter-efficient, and robust to hyperparameter choice.

Abinitha Gourabathina, Inkit Padhi, Manish Nagireddy et al.

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed, models must effectively know when not to answer: abstain. Reasoning models, in particular, have gained attention for impressive performance on complex tasks. However, reasoning models have been shown to have worse abstention abilities. Taking the vulnerabilities of reasoning models into account, we propose our Query Misalignment Framework. Hallucinations resulting in failed abstention can be reinterpreted as LLMs answering the wrong question (rather than answering a question incorrectly). Based on this framework, we develop a new class of state-of-the-art abstention methods called Trace Inversion. First, we generate the reasoning trace of a model. Based on only the trace, we then reconstruct the most likely query that the model responded to. Finally, we compare the initial query with the reconstructed query. Low similarity score between the initial query and reconstructed query suggests that the model likely answered the question incorrectly and is flagged to abstain. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Trace Inversion effectively boosts abstention performance in four frontier LLMs across nine abstention QA datasets, beating competitive baselines in 33 out of 36 settings.

Abinitha Gourabathina, Yuexing Hao, Walter Gerych et al.

Clinical robustness is critical to the safe deployment of medical Large Language Models (LLMs), but key questions remain about how LLMs and humans may differ in response to the real-world variability typified by clinical settings. To address this, we introduce MedPerturb, a dataset designed to systematically evaluate medical LLMs under controlled perturbations of clinical input. MedPerturb consists of clinical vignettes spanning a range of pathologies, each transformed along three axes: (1) gender modifications (e.g., gender-swapping or gender-removal); (2) style variation (e.g., uncertain phrasing or colloquial tone); and (3) format changes (e.g., LLM-generated multi-turn conversations or summaries). With MedPerturb, we release a dataset of 800 clinical contexts grounded in realistic input variability, outputs from four LLMs, and three human expert reads per clinical context. We use MedPerturb in two case studies to reveal how shifts in gender identity cues, language style, or format reflect diverging treatment selections between humans and LLMs. We find that LLMs are more sensitive to gender and style perturbations while human annotators are more sensitive to LLM-generated format perturbations such as clinical summaries. Our results highlight the need for evaluation frameworks that go beyond static benchmarks to assess the similarity between human clinician and LLM decisions under the variability characteristic of clinical settings.