LLM-as-a-fuzzy-judge: Fine-tuning large language models as a clinical evaluation judge with fuzzy logic
Open accessAbstract
Clinical communication skills are critical in medical education, and practicing and assessing clinical communication skills on a scale is challenging. Although LLM-powered clinical scenario simulations have shown promise in enhancing medical students' clinical practice, providing automated and scalable clinical evaluation that follows nuanced physician judgment is difficult. This paper combines fuzzy logic and Large Language Model (LLM) and proposes LLM-as-a-Fuzzy-Judge to address the challenge of aligning the automated evaluation of medical students' clinical skills with subjective physicians' preferences. LLM-as-a-Fuzzy-Judge is an approach that LLM is fine-tuned to evaluate medical students' utterances within student-AI patient conversation scripts based on human annotations from four fuzzy sets, including Professionalism, Medical Relevance, Ethical Behavior, and Contextual Distraction. The methodology of this paper started from data collection from the LLM-powered medical education system, data annotation based on multidimensional fuzzy sets, followed by prompt engineering and the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of the pre-trained LLMs using these human annotations. The results show that the LLM-as-a-Fuzzy-Judge achieves over 80\% accuracy, with major criteria items over 90\%, effectively leveraging fuzzy logic and LLM as a solution to deliver interpretable, human-aligned assessment. This work suggests the viability of leveraging fuzzy logic and LLM to align with human preferences, advances automated evaluation in medical education, and supports more robust assessment and judgment practices. The GitHub repository of this work is available at https://github.com/2sigmaEdTech/LLMAsAJudge
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
MCDM-based applications have not been applied with a primary focus on systematically assessing the trustworthiness of LLMs.
“However, they have not been applied with a primary focus on systematically assessing the trustworthiness of LLMs.”
From Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
The Introduction (p. 2) discusses fuzzy evaluation criteria for clinical interactions, and the Discussion (p. 10) reports how the authors' clinical-evaluation model performs. Neither passage addresses whether MCDM-based applications have primarily focused on systematically assessing LLM trustworthiness. Searches for MCDM and that specific trustworthiness focus found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [14]14. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., ukasz Kaiser, Ł., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is All you Need. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc. (2017)
- [15]15. [Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 (3), 338-353 (Jun 1965). https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X) · DOI
- [17]17. Zheng, W., Turner, L., Kropczynski, J., Ozer, M., Kelleher, M., Overla, S., Halse, S.: The User-Centered Iterative Design of an LLM-Powered Educational Scenario Simulator for Clinical Reasoning. CS & IT Conference Proceedings 15 (10) (May 2025), http://csitcp.com/abstract/15/1510csit19
- Authors
- Zheng, W., Turner, L., Kropczynski, J., Ozer, M., Nguyen, T., & Halse, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.11221
- OpenAlex
- W4414875604
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- large language models, fuzzy logic, clinical communication skills, medical education, fuzzy sets, professionalism, moral behavior, supervised fine-tuning
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