arXiv AI By Jiacheng Hou, Xueliang Cui, Dan Lu, Ruxin Wang

Learning When to Collaborate: Selective Multi-Agent Medical Reasoning via Uncertainty-Aware Routing

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces SMART‑Med, a local multi‑agent system for medical reasoning that learns when to collaborate instead of always engaging all agents. By using an uncertainty‑driven routing mechanism, it selectively recruits expert agents only for uncertain queries, thereby converting dense collaboration into query‑adaptive coordination. The authors also present a new multimodal dataset, MedVR‑3K, and demonstrate that SMART‑Med matches or surpasses existing multi‑agent approaches while cutting inference time by over 3.8× and token usage by 72%, with a 6.7% average accuracy gain across four VQA benchmarks.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

MedResearcher-R1: Expert-Level Medical Deep Researcher via A Knowledge-Informed Trajectory Synthesis Framework

MedResearcher‑R1 is a medical deep‑research agent that uses a Knowledge‑Informed Trajectory Synthesis (KISA) framework to build medical knowledge graphs and generate complex multi‑hop question‑answer pairs, especially for rare medical entities. It also incorporates a medical retrieval engine and general‑purpose tools to reliably synthesize medical evidence. The resulting 2,100+ trajectories across 12 specialties enable supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning, producing a 32B model that outperforms larger proprietary systems on MedBrowseComp and shows strong performance on GAIA and xBench benchmarks.

By Ailing Yu, HaoYang Hong, Lan Yao, Jingnan Liu, Zhe Chen, Jiajun Yin, Yuan Wang, Xinhao Liao, Zhiling Ye, Ji Li, Yun Yue, Hansong Xiao, Hualei Zhou, Chunxiao Guo, Peng Wei, Junwei Liu, Jinjie Gu
arXiv AI
1d ago

Challenge-Aware Knowledge Recruitment with Meta-Agent Supervision for Medical Multi-Agent Reasoning

The paper introduces a challenge‑aware adaptive recruitment system for medical multi‑agent reasoning. An external CHALLENGER monitors the evolving reasoning trace to detect factual or expertise gaps, triggering targeted knowledge retrieval or specialist recruitment mid‑discussion. Experiments on the MEDAGENTSBENCH hard subset show that challenge‑aware in‑between retrieval and Challenger‑triggered specialist recruitment improve accuracy, while naive combinations degrade performance, underscoring the importance of timing and coordination in resource recruitment.

By Riccardo Riccio, Haitz S\'aez de Oc\'ariz Borde, Pietro Li\`o
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

Lingshu: A Generalist Foundation Model for Unified Multimodal Medical Understanding and Reasoning

Lingshu is a medical‑specialized multimodal large language model that addresses key limitations of existing medical MLLMs, such as narrow knowledge coverage, hallucinations, and weak reasoning. The authors curate a comprehensive dataset combining medical imaging, texts, and general‑domain data, then train Lingshu in multiple stages to embed medical expertise and improve task performance. They also introduce MedEvalKit, a unified evaluation framework, and demonstrate that Lingshu outperforms current open‑source multimodal models on multimodal QA, text‑based QA, and medical report generation.

By Weiwen Xu, Hou Pong Chan, Long Li, Mahani Aljunied, Ruifeng Yuan, Jianyu Wang, Chenghao Xiao, Guizhen Chen, Chaoqun Liu, Zhaodonghui Li, Yu Sun, Junao Shen, Chaojun Wang, Jie Tan, Deli Zhao, Tingyang Xu, Hao Zhang, Yu Rong
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Let Large Language Models Judge Each Other: Multi-Agent Peer-Reviewed Reasoning for Medical Question Answering

The paper introduces a multi-agent peer‑reviewed reasoning approach for medical question answering, where several large language models independently generate chain‑of‑thought explanations and then evaluate each other’s reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest‑rated reasoning chain is used to produce the final answer. Experiments with five state‑of‑the‑art LLMs on three benchmark datasets show that this method consistently outperforms single‑model chain‑of‑thought reasoning and majority voting ensembles, achieving an average accuracy of 0.820 versus 0.777 for the best single model.

By Zaifu Zhan, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang