Who Judges the Judge? Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge for French Medical open-ended QA

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04033v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 13:12:30 GMT
• Title: Who Judges the Judge? Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge for French Medical open-ended QA
• Authors: Ikram Belmadani, Oumaima El Khettari, Pacôme Constant dit Beaufils, Richard Dufour, Benoit Favre,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can act as judges of semantic equivalence in French medical OEQA.<n>Our results show that LLM-based judgments are strongly influenced by the model that generated the answer.
• Score: 5.328379818938021
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatic evaluation of medical open-ended question answering (OEQA) remains challenging due to the need for expert annotations. We evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can act as judges of semantic equivalence in French medical OEQA, comparing closed-access, general-purpose, and biomedical domain-adapted models. Our results show that LLM-based judgments are strongly influenced by the model that generated the answer, with agreement varying substantially across generators. Domain-adapted and large general-purpose models achieve the highest alignment with expert annotations. We further show that lightweight adaptation of a compact model using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) substantially improves performance and reduces generator sensitivity, even with limited data. Overall, our findings highlight the need for generator-aware evaluation and suggest that carefully adapted small models can support scalable evaluation in low-resource medical settings.

Related papers

• When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation [18.338933046286257]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to address diverse problems, including medical queries.<n>LLMs often perform poorly in medical contexts, potentially leading to harmful misguidance for users.<n>This paper focuses on fine-tuning the Llama 2 7B, a transformer-based, decoder-only model, using transcripts from real patient-doctor interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:09:43Z)
• Mitigating Judgment Preference Bias in Large Language Models through Group-Based Polling [26.377421806098187]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators have attracted growing attention.<n>LLMs tend to favor responses generated by themselves, undermining the reliability of their judgments.<n>This paper introduces the Group-Based Polling Optimization (Genii), an unsupervised multi-agent collaborative optimization framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T12:32:31Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Expert Control: Enhancing the Reliability of Medical Vision-Language Models [52.2001050216955]
  Existing methods aim to enhance the performance of Medical Vision Language Model (MedVLM) by adjusting model structure, fine-tuning with high-quality data, or through preference fine-tuning.<n>We propose an expert-in-the-loop framework named Expert-Controlled-Free Guidance (Expert-CFG) to align MedVLM with clinical expertise without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T09:03:30Z)
• CompassJudger-2: Towards Generalist Judge Model via Verifiable Rewards [72.44810390478229]
  CompassJudger-2 is a novel generalist judge model that overcomes limitations via a task-driven, multi-domain data curation strategy.<n> CompassJudger-2 achieves superior results across multiple judge and reward benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T01:34:24Z)
• Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models [26.702477426812333]
  We introduce MedThink-Bench, a benchmark for rigorous, explainable, and scalable assessment of large language models' medical reasoning.<n>We also propose LLM-w-Ref, a novel evaluation framework that leverages fine-grained rationales and LLM-as-a-Judge mechanisms.<n>Overall, MedThink-Bench offers a foundational tool for evaluating LLMs' medical reasoning, advancing their safe and responsible deployment in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T17:58:26Z)
• HiMATE: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation [39.7293877954587]
  HiMATE is a Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluation.<n>We develop a hierarchical multi-agent system grounded in the MQM error typology, enabling granular evaluation of subtype errors.<n> Empirically, HiMATE outperforms competitive baselines across different datasets in conducting human-aligned evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T06:24:08Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• OpeNLGauge: An Explainable Metric for NLG Evaluation with Open-Weights LLMs [1.8434042562191815]
  OpeNLGauge is a fully open-source, reference-free NLG evaluation metric that provides accurate explanations based on error spans.<n>Our extensive meta-evaluation shows that OpeNLGauge achieves competitive correlation with human judgments, outperforming state-of-the-art models on certain tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T20:38:47Z)
• Judge as A Judge: Improving the Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation through the Judge-Consistency of Large Language Models [68.92020689188887]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has proven its effectiveness in alleviating hallucinations for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Existing automated evaluation metrics cannot fairly evaluate the outputs generated by RAG models during training and evaluation.<n>This paper introduces the Judge-Consistency (ConsJudge) method, which aims to enhance LLMs to generate more accurate evaluations for RAG models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T04:50:43Z)
• 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)
• Comprehensive and Practical Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems for Medical Question Answering [70.44269982045415]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) We introduce Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (MedRGB) that provides various supplementary elements to four medical QA datasets. Our experimental results reveals current models' limited ability to handle noise and misinformation in the retrieved documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:19:18Z)

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.