arXiv AI

Let LLMs Judge Each Other: Multi-Agent Peer-Reviewed Reasoning for Medical Question Answering

arXiv:2606. 15419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA).

arXiv AI
Aug 20

Adaptive Memory and Reflection Multi-Agent System for Medical Question Answering

The paper introduces an adaptive memory and reflection (AMR) multi‑agent system for medical question answering. Each agent has dedicated memory and uses reflection‑based feedback to retrieve relevant prior cases, improving reasoning. The system routes questions through solo, collaborative, or escalated workflows and includes consensus and ethical overseer modules, achieving strong performance on MedQA and MedMCQA datasets.

By Pradeep Murugesan, Luoxiao Yang, Xueli Chen, Xinqi Fan
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications

The paper reviews how Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adapted for medical reasoning, moving beyond single-step answers to systems that can systematically, transparently, and verifiably reason. It introduces a taxonomy of enhancement techniques, split into training-time methods such as supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning, and test-time methods like prompt engineering and multi‑agent systems. The review examines their application across text, image, and code modalities in key clinical areas—diagnosis, education, and treatment planning—and tracks the shift in evaluation benchmarks from simple accuracy to more nuanced assessments of reasoning quality and visual interpretability.

By Zizhan Ma, Wenxuan Wang, Meidan Ding, Shiyi Zheng, Shengyuan Liu, Jie Liu, Jiaming Ji, Linlin Shen, Yixuan Yuan, Wenting Chen
arXiv AI
Jul 28

OpenAIs HealthBench in Action: Evaluating an LLM-Based Medical Assistant on Realistic Clinical Queries

arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.

By Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Reinhard Berkels, Michiel van der Heijden, Olivier Fail, Valentine Emmanuel Gnanapragasam
arXiv AI
Sep 1

Scoring, Reasoning, and Selecting the Best! Ensembling Large Language Models via a Peer-Review Process

The paper introduces LLM‑PeerReview, an unsupervised ensemble method that selects the best response from multiple LLM-generated candidates by scoring each answer with several LLMs, aggregating those scores via averaging or a graphical model, and choosing the highest-scoring response. The approach is peer‑review inspired, transparent, and interpretable, and it outperforms the Smoothie‑Global model by 6.9%–7.3% across factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction‑following tasks. The authors also provide a curated benchmark suite of 12 ensemble methods evaluated on four datasets and three task families to aid reproducibility.

By Zhijun Chen, Zeyu Ji, Qianren Mao, Hao Wu, Jinhuan Song, Junhang Cheng, Bangjie Qin, Zhuoran Li, Jingzheng Li, Kai Sun, Zizhe Wang, Yikun Ban, Zhu Sun, Xiangyang Ji, Hailong Sun, Xiao Huang
arXiv AI
Jun 9

From Conflict to Consensus: Boosting Medical Reasoning via Multi-Round Agentic RAG

arXiv:2603. 03292v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit high reasoning capacity in medical question-answering, but their tendency to produce hallucinations and outdated knowledge poses critical risks in healthcare fields.

By Wenhao Wu, Zhentao Tang, Yafu Li, Shixiong Kai, Mingxuan Yuan, Zhenhong Sun, Chunlin Chen, Zhi Wang
arXiv AI
Jun 17

MedicalAgentsBench for Complex Medical Reasoning: Comparing Internalized Reasoning Models versus Externalized Agent-based Frameworks

arXiv:2503. 07459v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Complex medical reasoning requires integrating heterogeneous clinical evidence across multiple inference steps.

By Yanjun Shao, Xiangru Tang, Jiwoong Sohn, Jiapeng Chen, Yuxuan Liao, Jiayi Zhang, Jinyu Xiang, Fang Wu, Yilun Zhao, Chenglin Wu, Wenqi Shi, Arman Cohan, Mark Gerstein
arXiv AI
2d ago

Scaling Clinical Judgment to Evaluate Medical AI

arXiv:2609.12822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)....

By Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur, Byron Crowe, Anthony M. Pettinato, Aashna P. Shah, Adrian D. Haimovich, Liam G. McCoy, Daniel Restrepo, Jason A. Freed, Ethan Goh, Jonathan H. Chen, Laura Zwaan, Katherine E. Goodman, Daniel J. Morgan, Raja-Elie E. Abdulnour, Adam Rodman, Arjun K. Manrai
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 24

Designing a Robust LLM-Based Evaluation System for Agentic AI in Drug Discovery Through Human Alignment

The paper introduces an LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating the outputs of an agentic drug discovery assistant, ChatInvent, deployed at AstraZeneca. It defines four quality dimensions—Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence—alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks, and validates the judge against five expert annotators. After optimizing the best-performing judge with few-shot demonstrations, alignment with human majority votes improves from 0.80 to 0.86, and the framework reveals that informal question phrasing does not degrade output quality.

By Emma Granqvist, Roc\'io Mercado, Samuel Genheden