MATRIX: Multi-Agent simulaTion fRamework for safe Interactions and conteXtual clinical conversational evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) in clinical dialogue systems, existing evaluations focus on task completion or fluency, offering little insight into the behavioral and risk management requirements essential for safety-critical systems. This paper presents MATRIX (Multi-Agent simulaTion fRamework for safe Interactions and conteXtual clinical conversational evaluation), a structured, extensible framework for safety-oriented evaluation of clinical dialogue agents. MATRIX integrates three components: (1) a safety-aligned taxonomy of clinical scenarios, expected system behaviors and failure modes derived through structured safety engineering methods; (2) BehvJudge, an LLM-based evaluator for detecting safety-relevant dialogue failures, validated against expert clinician annotations; and (3) PatBot, a simulated patient agent capable of producing diverse, scenario-conditioned responses, evaluated for realism and behavioral fidelity with human factors expertise, and a patient-preference study. Across three experiments, we show that MATRIX enables systematic, scalable safety evaluation. BehvJudge with Gemini 2.5-Pro achieves expert-level hazard detection (F1 0.96, sensitivity 0.999), outperforming clinicians in a blinded assessment of 240 dialogues. We also conducted one of the first realism analyses of LLM-based patient simulation, showing that PatBot reliably simulates realistic patient behavior in quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Using MATRIX, we demonstrate its effectiveness in benchmarking five LLM agents across 2,100 simulated dialogues spanning 14 hazard scenarios and 10 clinical domains. MATRIX is the first framework to unify structured safety engineering with scalable, validated conversational AI evaluation, enabling regulator-aligned safety auditing. We release all evaluation tools, prompts, structured scenarios, and datasets.
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?
There is little agreement on how to evaluate claims that RAG, knowledge graphs, fine tuning, agentic frameworks, prompt and context engineering reduce model hallucination and errors.
“However, there is little agreement on how to evaluate these claims, and due to the context sensitivity problem, generic performance benchmarks carry no weight in most safety critical contexts (see references in [11]).”
From Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
The Introduction and Additional information (pages not provided) say that generic performance metrics miss clinically relevant, safety-critical failures and that evaluation needs to account for specific hazards. The paper does not establish a lack of agreement about how to evaluate whether RAG, knowledge graphs, fine-tuning, or prompt and context engineering reduce hallucinations and errors; nor does it make the broader claim that generic benchmarks carry no weight in most safety-critical contexts. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDue to context sensitivity, generic performance benchmarks carry no weight in most safety critical contexts.
“However, there is little agreement on how to evaluate these claims, and due to the context sensitivity problem, generic performance benchmarks carry no weight in most safety critical contexts (see references in [11]).”
From Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
The Introduction and Additional information sections say generic task-success and quality metrics miss clinically relevant hazards, and that safety evaluation needs context-specific, hazard-focused measures. They do not say generic benchmarks carry no weight, or establish that conclusion for most safety-critical contexts beyond clinical conversations. The cited paper does not establish the sentence’s broader claim about agreement on how to evaluate these claims. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Rahul K. Arora, Jason Wei, Rebecca Soskin Hicks, Preston Bowman, Joaquin Quiñonero-Candela, Foivos Tsimpourlas, Michael Sharman, Meghan Shah, Andrea Vallone, Alex Beutel, Johannes Heidecke, and Karan Singhal. HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health, May 2025. arXiv:2505.08775 [cs]. · arXiv
- Michael Balint. THE DOCTOR, HIS PATIENT, AND THE ILLNESS. The Lancet, 265(6866):683-688, April 1955. Publisher: Elsevier.
- Paweø Budzianowski, Tsung-Hsien Wen, Bo-Hsiang Tseng, Iñigo Casanueva, Stefan Ultes, Osman Ra- madan, and Milica Gaši c. MultiWOZ -A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Wizard-of-Oz Dataset for Task- Oriented Dialogue Modelling, April 2020. arXiv:1810.00278 [cs]. · arXiv
- Bill Byrne, Karthik Krishnamoorthi, Chinnadhurai Sankar, Arvind Neelakantan, Daniel Duckworth, Semih Yavuz, Ben Goodrich, Amit Dubey, Andy Cedilnik, and Kyu-Young Kim. Taskmaster-1: Toward a Realistic and Diverse Dialog Dataset, September 2019. arXiv:1909.05358 [cs]. · arXiv
- Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, Wei Ye, Yue Zhang, Yi Chang, Philip S. Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie. A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models, August 2023. arXiv:2307.03109 [cs]. · arXiv
- Clifton A. Ericson. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
- Paul Festor, Yan Jia, Anthony C. Gordon, A. Aldo Faisal, Ibrahim Habli, and Matthieu Komorowski. Assuring the safety of AI-based clinical decision support systems: a case study of the AI Clinician for sepsis treatment. BMJ health & care informatics, 29(1):e100549, July 2022.
- Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al- Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Zhang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Austen Gregerson, Ava Spataru, Baptiste Roziere, Bethany Biron, Binh Tang, Bobbie Chern, Charlotte Caucheteux, Chaya Nayak, Chloe Bi, Chris Marra, Chris McConnell, Christian Keller, Christophe Touret, Chunyang Wu, Corinne Wong, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Cyrus Nikolaidis, Damien Allonsius, Daniel Song, Danielle Pintz, Danny Livshits, Danny Wyatt, David Esiobu, Dhruv Choudhary, Dhruv Mahajan, Diego Garcia-Olano, Diego Perino, Dieuwke Hupkes, Egor Lakomkin, Ehab AlBadawy, Elina Lobanova, Emily Dinan, Eric Michael Smith, Filip Radenovic, Francisco Guzmán, Frank Zhang, Gabriel Synnaeve, Gabrielle Lee, Georgia Lewis Anderson, Govind Thattai, Graeme Nail, Gregoire Mialon, Guan Pang, Guillem Cucurell, Hailey Nguyen, Hannah Korevaar, Hu Xu, Hugo Touvron, Iliyan Zarov, Imanol Arrieta Ibarra, Isabel Kloumann, Ishan Misra, Ivan Evtimov, Jack Zhang, Jade Copet, Jaewon Lee, Jan Geffert, Jana Vranes, Jason Park, Jay Mahadeokar, Jeet Shah, Koehler, Thomas Robinson, Tianhe Li, Tianjun Zhang, Tim Matthews, Timothy Chou, Tzook Shaked, Varun Vontimitta, Victoria Ajayi, Victoria Montanez, Vijai Mohan, Vinay Satish Kumar, Vishal Mangla, Vlad Ionescu, Vlad Poenaru, Vlad Tiberiu Mihailescu, Vladimir Ivanov, Wei Li, Wenchen Wang, Wenwen Jiang, Wes Bouaziz, Will Constable, Xiaocheng Tang, Xiaojian Wu, Xiaolan Wang, Xilun Wu, Xinbo Gao, Yaniv Kleinman, Yanjun Chen, Ye Hu, Ye Jia, Ye Qi, Yenda Li, Yilin Zhang, Ying Zhang, Yossi Adi, Youngjin Nam, Yu, Wang, Yu Zhao, Yuchen Hao, Yundi Qian, Yunlu Li, Yuzi He, Zach Rait, Zachary DeVito, Zef Rosnbrick, Zhaoduo Wen, Zhenyu Yang, Zhiwei Zhao, and Zhiyu Ma. The Llama 3 Herd of Models, November 2024. arXiv:2407.21783 [cs]. · arXiv
- Shengyue Guan, Haoyi Xiong, Jindong Wang, Jiang Bian, Bin Zhu, and Jian-guang Lou. Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey, March 2025. arXiv:2503.22458 [cs]. · arXiv
- Richard Hawkins, Matt Osborne, Mike Parsons, Mark Nicholson, John McDermid, and Ibrahim Habli. Guidance on the Safety Assurance of Autonomous Systems in Complex Environments (SACE), August 2022. arXiv:2208.00853 [cs]. · arXiv
- Ole R. Holsti. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969. Google-Books-ID: sC5WmgEACAAJ.
- Josh Hunter, John McDermid, and Simon Burton. Safety Analysis of Autonomous Railway Systems: An Introduction to the SACRED Methodology, March 2024. arXiv:2403.12114 [cs]. · arXiv
- Yan Jia, John McDermid, Tom Lawton, and Ibrahim Habli. The Role of Explainability in Assuring Safety of Machine Learning in Healthcare, May 2022. arXiv:2109.00520 [cs]. · arXiv
- 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, September 2020. arXiv:2009.13081 [cs]. · arXiv
- Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2567-2577, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A. Tran, Daniel I. Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Leandra A. Barnes, Hong-Yu Zhou, Zhuo Ran Cai, Eliezer M. Van Allen, David Kim, Roxana Daneshjou, and Pranav Rajpurkar. An evaluation framework for clinical use of large language models in patient interaction tasks. Nature Medicine, pages 1-10, January 2025. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
- Taaha Kazi, Ruiliang Lyu, Sizhe Zhou, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, and Gokhan Tur. Large Language Models as User-Agents for Evaluating Task-Oriented-Dialogue Systems, November 2024. arXiv:2411.09972 [cs]. · arXiv
- Shuyue Stella Li, Vidhisha Balachandran, Shangbin Feng, Jonathan Ilgen, Emma Pierson, Pang Wei Koh, and Yulia Tsvetkov. MEDIQ: Question-Asking LLMs for Adaptive and Reliable Clinical Reasoning. CoRR, January 2024.
- Yanzeng Li, Cheng Zeng, Jialun Zhong, Ruoyu Zhang, Minhao Zhang, and Lei Zou. Leveraging Large Language Model as Simulated Patients for Clinical Education, April 2024. arXiv:2404.13066 [cs]. · arXiv
- Bertalan Meskó and Eric J. Topol. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare | npj Digital Medicine. npj Digital Medicine, 6(1):120, July 2023.
- Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Shathar Mahmood, Andrew Malem, William Paul Foster, Rohan Sanghera, Refaat Hassan, Sean Zhou, Shiao Wei Wong, Yee Ling Wong, Yu Jeat Chong, Abdullah Shakeel, Yin-Hsi Chang, Benjamin Kye Jyn Tan, Nikhil Jain, Ting Fang Tan, Saaeha Rauz, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, and Darren Shu Jeng Ting. Large language models approach expert-level clinical knowledge and reasoning in ophthalmology: A head-to-head cross-sectional study. PLOS Digital Health, 3(4):e0000341, April 2024. Publisher: Public Library of Science.
- Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, Shekoofeh Azizi, Karan Singhal, Yong Cheng, Le Hou, Albert Webson, Kavita Kulkarni, S. Sara Mahdavi, Christopher Semturs, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barral, Katherine Chou, Greg S. Corrado, Yossi Matias, Alan Karthikesalingam, and Vivek Natarajan. Towards Conversational Diagnostic AI, January 2024. arXiv:2401.05654 [cs]. · arXiv
- Valena Reich, Colin Mitchell, Elizabeth Redrup Hill, Puja Myles, Richard Branson, Russell Pearson and members of the Expert Working Group. Synthetic data for development of AI as a medical device (AIaMDs) -Regulatory Considerations, June 2025.
- Qi Zhu, Zheng Zhang, Yan Fang, Xiang Li, Ryuichi Takanobu, Jinchao Li, Baolin Peng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. ConvLab-2: An Open-Source Toolkit for Building, Evaluating, and Diagnosing Dialogue Systems, April 2020. arXiv:2002.04793 [cs]. Claude-3.5-Sonnet anthropic.claude-3-5-sonnet-20240620-v1:0 AWS Claude-3.7-Sonnet us.anthropic.claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219-v1:0 AWS GPT-4.1 gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 OpenAI GPT-4o gpt-4o-2024-08-06 OpenAI GPT-4.5 gpt-4.5 OpenAI Gemini-2.0-Flash gemini-2.0-flash Google Gemini-2.5-Pro gemini-2.5-pro-preview-03-25 Google Llama-3.3-70B us.meta.llama3-3-70b-instruct-v1:0 AWS Llama-3-70B meta.llama3-70b-instruct-v1:0 AWS Llama-3-8B meta.llama3-8b-instruct-v1:0 AWS · arXiv
- Authors
- Lim, E., He, Y. V., Joselowitz, J., Preston, K., Chowdhury, M., Williams, L., Higham, A., Mason, K., Melo, M., Lawton, T., Jia, Y., & Habli, I.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2508.19163
- OpenAlex
- W7077872087
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (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
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- large language models, LLM-based evaluators, safety-critical systems, safety audits
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