Beyond Overall Accuracy: A Psychometric Deep Dive into the Topic-Specific Medical Capabilities of 80 Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24186v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 02:06:13 GMT
• Title: Beyond Overall Accuracy: A Psychometric Deep Dive into the Topic-Specific Medical Capabilities of 80 Large Language Models
• Authors: Zhimeng Luo, Lixin Wu, Adam Frisch, Daqing He,
• Abstract summary: We introduce textscMedIRT, a rigorous evaluation framework grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT)<n>We prospectively gathered fresh responses from 80 diverse Large Language Models (LLMs) on a balanced, 1,100-question USMLE-aligned benchmark.<n>We estimate LLM's latent model ability jointly with question difficulty and discrimination, yielding more stable and nuanced performance rankings than accuracy alone.
• Score: 6.362188639024662
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for high-stakes medical applications, there has emerged a critical need for reliable and accurate evaluation methodologies. Traditional accuracy metrics fail inadequately as they neither capture question characteristics nor offer topic-specific insights. To address this gap, we introduce \textsc{MedIRT}, a rigorous evaluation framework grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT), the gold standard in high-stakes educational testing. Unlike previous research relying on archival data, we prospectively gathered fresh responses from 80 diverse LLMs on a balanced, 1,100-question USMLE-aligned benchmark. Using one unidimensional two-parameter logistic IRT model per topic, we estimate LLM's latent model ability jointly with question difficulty and discrimination, yielding more stable and nuanced performance rankings than accuracy alone. Notably, we identify distinctive ``spiky'' ability profiles, where overall rankings can be misleading due to highly specialized model abilities. While \texttt{GPT-5} was the top performer in a majority of domains (8 of 11), it was outperformed in Social Science and Communication by \texttt{Claude-3-opus}, demonstrating that even an overall 23rd-ranked model can hold the top spot for specific competencies. Furthermore, we demonstrate IRT's utility in auditing benchmarks by identifying flawed questions. We synthesize these findings into a practical decision-support framework that integrates our multi-factor competency profiles with operational metrics. This work establishes a robust, psychometrically grounded methodology essential for the safe, effective, and trustworthy deployment of LLMs in healthcare.

Related papers

• RADAR: Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM Pre-training [59.493415006017635]
  Pre-trained Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) provide a knowledge-rich foundation for post-training.<n>Current evaluation relies on testing after supervised fine-tuning, which introduces laborious additional training and autoregressive decoding costs.<n>We propose RADAR, an efficient ability-centric evaluation framework for Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM pRe-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T12:56:31Z)
• RankLLM: Weighted Ranking of LLMs by Quantifying Question Difficulty [102.02839046225468]
  RankLLM is a novel framework designed to quantify both question difficulty and model competency.<n>We evaluate 30 models on 35,550 questions across multiple domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T21:28:46Z)
• AdversaRiskQA: An Adversarial Factuality Benchmark for High-Risk Domains [3.721111684544962]
  Hallucination in large language models (LLMs) contributes to spread of misinformation and diminished public trust.<n>We introduce AdversaRiskQA, the first verified and reliable benchmark systematically evaluating adversarial factuality.<n>We evaluate six open- and closed-source LLMs from the Qwen, GPT-OSS, and GPT families, measuring misinformation detection rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T22:47:59Z)
• An Expert-grounded benchmark of General Purpose LLMs in LCA [1.9645069537947935]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as tools to support life cycle assessment (LCA)<n>This study provides the first expert-grounded benchmark of LLMs in LCA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T15:56:54Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• General-Reasoner: Advancing LLM Reasoning Across All Domains [64.70599911897595]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently demonstrated strong potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose General-Reasoner, a novel training paradigm designed to enhance LLM reasoning capabilities across diverse domains.<n>We train a series of models and evaluate them on a wide range of datasets covering wide domains like physics, chemistry, finance, electronics etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:41:33Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Are Your LLMs Capable of Stable Reasoning? [38.03049704515947]
  We introduce G-Pass@$k$, a novel evaluation metric that continuously assesses model performance across multiple sampling attempts.<n>We employ G-Pass@$k$ in conjunction with state-of-the-art large language models to provide comprehensive insights into their potential capabilities and operational consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:12:47Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Investigating the Impact of Hard Samples on Accuracy Reveals In-class Data Imbalance [4.291589126905706]
  In the AutoML domain, test accuracy is heralded as the quintessential metric for evaluating model efficacy. However, the reliability of test accuracy as the primary performance metric has been called into question. The distribution of hard samples between training and test sets affects the difficulty levels of those sets. We propose a benchmarking procedure for comparing hard sample identification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T11:38:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.