Improving Automatic Evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Biomedical Relation Extraction via LLMs-as-the-Judge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in biomedical relation extraction, even in zero-shot scenarios. However, evaluating LLMs in this task remains challenging due to their ability to generate human-like text, often producing synonyms or abbreviations of gold-standard answers, making traditional automatic evaluation metrics unreliable. On the other hand, while human evaluation is more reliable, it is costly and time-consuming, making it impractical for real-world applications. This paper investigates the use of LLMs-as-the-Judge as an alternative evaluation method for biomedical relation extraction. We benchmark 8 LLMs as judges to evaluate the responses generated by 5 other LLMs across 3 biomedical relation extraction datasets. Unlike other text-generation tasks, we observe that LLM-based judges perform quite poorly (usually below 50% accuracy) in the biomedical relation extraction task. Our findings reveal that it happens mainly because relations extracted by LLMs do not adhere to any standard format. To address this, we propose structured output formatting for LLM-generated responses that helps LLM-Judges to improve their performance by about 15% (on average). We also introduce a domain adaptation technique to further enhance LLM-Judge performance by effectively transferring knowledge between datasets. We release both our human-annotated and LLM-annotated judgment data (36k samples in total) for public use here: https://github.com/tahmedge/llmjudgebiomedical_re.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".