PreprintCited by 15Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSpeech and dialogue systemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Automatic Interactive Evaluation for Large Language Models with State Aware Patient Simulator

Open access
Liao, Yusheng, Meng, Yutong, Wang, Yuhao, Liu, Hongcheng, Wang, Yanfeng, Wang, Yu·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in human interactions, yet their application within the medical field remains insufficiently explored. Previous works mainly focus on the performance of medical knowledge with examinations, which is far from the realistic scenarios, falling short in assessing the abilities of LLMs on clinical tasks. In the quest to enhance the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare, this paper introduces the Automated Interactive Evaluation (AIE) framework and the State-Aware Patient Simulator (SAPS), targeting the gap between traditional LLM evaluations and the nuanced demands of clinical practice. Unlike prior methods that rely on static medical knowledge assessments, AIE and SAPS provide a dynamic, realistic platform for assessing LLMs through multi-turn doctor-patient simulations. This approach offers a closer approximation to real clinical scenarios and allows for a detailed analysis of LLM behaviors in response to complex patient interactions. Our extensive experimental validation demonstrates the effectiveness of the AIE framework, with outcomes that align well with human evaluations, underscoring its potential to revolutionize medical LLM testing for improved healthcare delivery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2403.08495

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous benchmarks like AMIE, SAPS, and CRAFT-MD focus on dialogue-based evaluations but lack multimodal capabilities and do not simulate real-world biases, tool usage, multilingual, or specialist cases.

    “Previous benchmarks like AMIE23, SAPS30, and CRAFT-MD31 focus on dialogue-based evaluations but lack multimodal capabilities and do not simulate real-world biases, tool usage, multilingual, or specialist cases.”

    From AgentClinic: a multimodal benchmark for tool-using clinical AI agents (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 2.4 (page not provided) confirms that SAPS evaluates multi-round diagnostic dialogues, supporting the dialogue-based description for SAPS. The cited paper does not establish the claimed limitations for AMIE, SAPS, and CRAFT-MD as a group: the passages do not compare their multimodal capabilities or their handling of biases, tools, multilingual cases, and specialist cases. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13081, 2020b. · arXiv
  2. Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A Tran, Daniel I Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Zhuo Ran Cai, Roxana Daneshjou, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Testing the limits of language models: A conversational framework for medical ai assessment. medRxiv, 2023.
  3. Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A. Tran, Daniel I Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Zhuo Ran Cai, Roxana Daneshjou, and Pranav Rajpurkar. CRAFT- MD: A conversational evaluation framework for comprehensive assessment of clini- cal LLMs. In AAAI 2024 Spring Symposium on Clinical Foundation Models, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bk2nbTDtm8.
  4. Gerardo Flores, George H. Chen, Tom J. Pollard, Joyce C. Ho, and Tristan Naumann (eds.), Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, CHIL 2022, 7-8 April 2022, Virtual Event, volume 174 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 248-260. PMLR, 2022a. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v174/pal22a.html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liao, Y., Meng, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, H., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y.
Affiliations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Wang, Yuhao
  • Wang, Yanfeng
  • Wang, Yu
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400665557
Cited by
15
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, LLM evaluation, multi-turn dialogue, clinical scenario simulation, medical consultation, medical training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review