Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge. Use when the user wants to benchmark on HEAD-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Head Qa Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-head-qa-eval)
---
name: head-qa-eval
description: Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge. Use when the user wants to benchmark on HEAD-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1906.04701
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# head-qa-eval
> HEAD-QA: A Healthcare Dataset for Complex Reasoning — Vilares et al. (2019) (arXiv:1906.04701, 2019)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge.
## Datasets
- **HEAD-QA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Percentage of correctly answered questions out of the total number of questions.
- `POINTS` — range: other
- A scoring system from the official exams where a correct answer adds 3 points and an incorrect answer subtracts 1 point.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A multi-choice question with multiple answer options, derived from real healthcare specialization exams.
**Output**: A single selected answer option from the provided choices.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, golds):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p == g)
wrong = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p != g)
total = len(golds)
accuracy = correct / total
points = (3 * correct) - (1 * wrong)
return {'accuracy': accuracy, 'POINTS': points}
```
## Common pitfalls
- The POINTS metric penalizes incorrect answers (-1 point), so models that guess randomly will score negatively, unlike standard accuracy.
- Performance heavily depends on question length and domain; medicine questions (MIR) are consistently the hardest due to longer text, while pharmacology (FIR) and biology (BIR) are easier.
- Cross-lingual information retrieval models sometimes outperform in-domain Spanish models, indicating translation quality or retrieval robustness plays a major role.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Metrics We use accuracy and a POINTS metric (used in the official exams): a right answer counts 3 points and a wrong one subtracts 1 point.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{vilares2019headqa,
title={HEAD-QA: A Healthcare Dataset for Complex Reasoning},
author={Vilares et al. (2019)},
year={2019},
note={arXiv:1906.04701}
}
```
- arXiv: 1906.04701