研究揭示医学 AI 评分细则漏检幻觉的盲区

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Hallucinations can undermine clinician trust in LLMs, making it important that evaluation methods capture clinically relevant errors. Rubric-based evaluation has become the leading approach for assessing LLMs in medicine, but it is unclear whether rubric scores reflect such errors. We first study this in a controlled setting using MedHallu, finding that more specific rubrics better distinguish correct from hallucinated responses. To test this systematically, we develop a taxonomy of medical hallucination types and a clinician-validated error-injection pipeline that creates matched correct and error-injected responses. Across HealthBench, HealthBench Professional, and LiveMedBench, our clinically relevant hallucinations are missed by rubrics, often leaving scores unchanged. We find that rubrics are most effective when explicitly checking facts, and are less effective for additional or unexpected errors they do not anticipate. A preliminary retrieval-based factuality check recovers some of the rubric-blind errors, suggesting a complementary approach. These findings reveal systematic blind spots in current medical evaluation of LLMs and suggest that rubric scores alone are insufficient to establish clinical reliability, potentially undermining clinician trust and confidence in clinical deployment.

Submission history

From: Fabio James Fehr [view email]
[v1] Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:15:46 UTC (3,342 KB)
[v2] Tue, 27 Oct 2026 12:04:15 UTC (3,225 KB)