cs.CLFeb 28, 2026

Leveraging Computerized Adaptive Testing for Cost-effective Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Benchmarking

Authors: Tianpeng Zheng, Zhehan Jiang, Jiayi Liu, Shicong Feng

Organizations: Institute of Medical Education, Health Science Center, Peking University, Beijing, China · School of Public Health, Peking University, Haidian District, Beijing, China · Peking University Health Science Center-Chaoxing Joint Laboratory for Digital and Smart Medical, Peking University, Beijing, China · Graduate School of Education, Peking University, Haidian District, Beijing, China

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare creates an urgent need for scalable and psychometrically sound evaluation methods. Conventional static benchmarks are costly to administer repeatedly, vulnerable to data contamination, and lack calibrated measurement properties for fine-grained performance tracking. We propose and validate a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) framework grounded in item response theory (IRT) for efficient assessment of standardized medical knowledge in LLMs. The study comprises a two-phase design: a Monte Carlo simulation to identify optimal CAT configurations and an empirical evaluation of 38 LLMs using a human-calibrated medical item bank. Each model completed both the full item bank and an adaptive test that dynamically selected items based on real-time ability estimates and terminated upon reaching a predefined reliability threshold (standard error <= 0.3). Results show that CAT-derived proficiency estimates achieved a near-perfect correlation with full-bank estimates (r = 0.988) while using only 1.3 percent of the items. Evaluation time was reduced from several hours to minutes per model, with substantial reductions in token usage and computational cost, while preserving inter-model performance rankings. This work establishes a psychometric framework for rapid, low-cost benchmarking of foundational medical knowledge in LLMs. The proposed adaptive methodology is intended as a standardized pre-screening and continuous monitoring tool and is not a substitute for real-world clinical validation or safety-oriented prospective studies.

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. Confident Rankings with Fewer Items: Adaptive LLM Evaluation with Continuous Scores

    Jan 20, 2026Esma Balkır, Alice Pernthaller, Marco Basaldella +2LLM EvaluationComputerized Adaptive Testing

  2. Adaptive Testing for LLM Evaluation: A Psychometric Alternative to Static Benchmarks

    Oct 26, 2025Peiyu Li, Xiuxiu Tang, Si Chen +4LLM EvaluationPsychometric Validation

  3. Reassessing High-Performing LLMs on Polish Medical Exams: True Competence or Bias-Driven Performance?

    Jun 10, 2026Antoni Lasik, Jakub Pokrywka, Łukasz Grzybowski +7LLM EvaluationLLM Reliability