Mingu Kwak

Hang Zhang, Ruheng Wang, Yuelyu Ji et al.

Large language models have achieved strong performance on medical reasoning benchmarks, yet their deployment in clinical settings demands rigorous verification to ensure factual accuracy. While reward models offer a scalable approach for reasoning trace verification, existing methods face two limitations: they produce only scalar reward values without explicit justification, and they rely on single-pass retrieval that precludes adaptive knowledge access as verification unfolds. We introduce $\method$, an agentic framework that addresses these limitations by training medical reasoning verifiers to iteratively query external medical corpora during evaluation. Our approach combines tool-augmented verification with an iterative reinforcement learning paradigm that requires only trace-level supervision, alongside an adaptive curriculum mechanism that dynamically adjusts training data distribution. Across four medical reasoning benchmarks, $\method$ achieves substantial gains over existing methods, improving MedQA accuracy by 23.5% and MedXpertQA by 32.0% relative to the base generator in particular. Crucially, $\method$ demonstrates an $\mathbf{8\times}$ reduction in sampling budget requirement compared to prior reward model baselines. These findings establish that grounding verification in dynamically retrieved evidence offers a principled path toward more reliable medical reasoning systems.

Chenyu Li, Zohaib Akhtar, Mingu Kwak et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate and process clinical text, scalable evaluation has become critical. LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), which uses LLMs to evaluate model outputs, offers a scalable alternative to costly expert review, but its healthcare adoption raises safety and bias concerns. We conducted a PRISMA-ScR scoping review of six databases (January 2020-January 2026), screening 11,727 studies and including 49. The landscape was dominated by evaluation and benchmarking applications (n=37, 75.5%), pointwise scoring (n=42, 85.7%), and GPT-family judges (n=36, 73.5%). Despite growing adoption, validation rigor was limited: among 36 studies with human involvement, the median number of expert validators was 3, while 13 (26.5%) used none. Risk of bias testing was absent in 36 studies (73.5%), only 1 (2.0%) examined demographic fairness, and none assessed temporal stability or patient context. Deployment remained limited, with 1 study (2.0%) reaching production and four (8.2%) prototype stage. Importantly, these gaps may interact: when judges and evaluated systems share training data or architectures, they may inherit similar blind spots, and agreement metrics may fail to distinguish true validity from shared errors. Minimal human oversight, limited bias assessment, and model monoculture together represent a governance gap where current validation may miss clinically significant errors. To address this, we propose MedJUDGE (Medical Judge Utility, De-biasing, Governance and Evaluation), a risk-stratified three-pillar framework organized around validity, safety, and accountability across clinical risk tiers, providing deployment-oriented evaluation guidance for healthcare LaaJ systems.