AI Rater Discrimination Depends on Scoring Protocol in Complex Clinical Decision-Making
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2606.03198 (cs)
[Submitted on 2 Jun 2026]
Title:AI Rater Discrimination Depends on Scoring Protocol in Complex Clinical Decision-Making
View a PDF of the paper titled AI Rater Discrimination Depends on Scoring Protocol in Complex Clinical Decision-Making, by Sangwon Baek and 2 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized. We address this gap through a factorial study of AI rater behavior in adult type 2 diabetes (T2D) pharmacotherapy at 12-month outpatient follow-up, a clinical task involving complex decision-making operationalized across seven evaluation questions. Four open-source LLMs served simultaneously as clinical decision support system (CDSS) models and AI raters. Each CDSS output was scored under two scoring protocols: a rubric-anchored Gold Rubric (GR) protocol incorporating a patient-specific rubric, and a rubric-free Non Gold Rubric (Non-GR) protocol. Linear mixed effects models crossed the scoring protocol factor with five design factors -- CDSS model, CDSS prompt configuration (document-referenced generation [DRG] vs.\ Baseline), rater model, prompt character, and prompt type -- and estimated main effects together with their protocol interactions. Across all questions, AI raters yielded consistently higher scores within a very narrow range (74--78 points on average) under Non-GR compared to those under GR (7.69 to 49.64 points lower mean scores; 1.68 to 3.67 times wider interquartile ranges). Within each question, GR amplified the AI rater's discrimination between DRG and Baseline CDSS outputs by factors of 1.76 to 5.10, while also revealing substantial behavioral variation across rater models that Non-GR suppressed. These findings support rubric anchoring as the scoring protocol that preserves discriminative power in clinical AI evaluation; rubric-free scoring cannot substitute when questions require patient-specific or jurisdiction-specific criteria that rater models cannot infer from parametric knowledge alone.
| Comments: | 11 pages, 4 main figures, 8 supplementary figures, 9 supplementary tables |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.03198 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.03198v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.03198
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled AI Rater Discrimination Depends on Scoring Protocol in Complex Clinical Decision-Making, by Sangwon Baek and 2 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Hallucination Is Linearly Decodable from Mid-Layer Hidden States in Quantized LLMs
Jun 3
-
Filter, Then Reweight: Rethinking Optimization Granularity in On-Policy Distillation
Jun 3
-
IdiomX A Multilingual Benchmark for Idiom Understanding, Retrieval, and Interpretation
Jun 3
-
Greener Than Humans? Environmental Attitudes in Large Language Models
Jun 3
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.