MedAgentAudit: Diagnosing and Quantifying Collaborative Failure Modes in Medical Multi-Agent Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10185v1
• Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 11:48:57 GMT
• Title: MedAgentAudit: Diagnosing and Quantifying Collaborative Failure Modes in Medical Multi-Agent Systems
• Authors: Lei Gu, Yinghao Zhu, Haoran Sang, Zixiang Wang, Dehao Sui, Wen Tang, Ewen Harrison, Junyi Gao, Lequan Yu, Liantao Ma,
• Abstract summary: Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems show promise in simulating medical consultations.<n>But their evaluation is often confined to final-answer accuracy.<n>This practice treats their internal collaborative processes as opaque "black boxes"
• Score: 28.028343705313805
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems show promise in simulating medical consultations, their evaluation is often confined to final-answer accuracy. This practice treats their internal collaborative processes as opaque "black boxes" and overlooks a critical question: is a diagnostic conclusion reached through a sound and verifiable reasoning pathway? The inscrutable nature of these systems poses a significant risk in high-stakes medical applications, potentially leading to flawed or untrustworthy conclusions. To address this, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of 3,600 cases from six medical datasets and six representative multi-agent frameworks. Through a rigorous, mixed-methods approach combining qualitative analysis with quantitative auditing, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy of collaborative failure modes. Our quantitative audit reveals four dominant failure patterns: flawed consensus driven by shared model deficiencies, suppression of correct minority opinions, ineffective discussion dynamics, and critical information loss during synthesis. This study demonstrates that high accuracy alone is an insufficient measure of clinical or public trust. It highlights the urgent need for transparent and auditable reasoning processes, a cornerstone for the responsible development and deployment of medical AI.

Related papers

• Strong Reasoning Isn't Enough: Evaluating Evidence Elicitation in Interactive Diagnosis [29.630872344186873]
  Interactive medical consultation requires an agent to proactively elicit missing clinical evidence under uncertainty.<n>Existing evaluations largely remain static or outcome-centric, neglecting the evidence-gathering process.<n>We propose an interactive evaluation framework that explicitly models the consultation process using a simulated patient and a revsimulated reporter grounded in atomic evidences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T16:36:35Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical LLMs: Benchmarking and Enhancing Confidence Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Consultation [97.36081721024728]
  We propose the first benchmark for assessing confidence in multi-turn interaction during realistic medical consultations.<n>Our benchmark unifies three types of medical data for open-ended diagnostic generation.<n>We present MedConf, an evidence-grounded linguistic self-assessment framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T04:51:39Z)
• MedDialogRubrics: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Multi-turn Medical Consultations in Large Language Models [15.91764739198419]
  We present MedDialogRubrics, a novel benchmark comprising 5,200 synthetically constructed patient cases and over 60,000 fine-grained evaluation rubrics.<n>Our framework employs a multi-agent system to synthesize realistic patient records and chief complaints without accessing real-world electronic health records.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T13:56:33Z)
• DispatchMAS: Fusing taxonomy and artificial intelligence agents for emergency medical services [49.70819009392778]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) offer opportunities to augment dispatchers.<n>This study aimed to develop and evaluate a taxonomy-grounded, multi-agent system for simulating realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T08:01:21Z)
• Shallow Robustness, Deep Vulnerabilities: Multi-Turn Evaluation of Medical LLMs [9.291589998223696]
  We introduce MedQA-Followup, a framework for evaluating multi-turn robustness in medical question answering.<n>Using controlled interventions on the MedQA dataset, we evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>We find that while models perform reasonably well under shallow perturbations, they exhibit severe vulnerabilities in multi-turn settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T08:04:18Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• KnowGuard: Knowledge-Driven Abstention for Multi-Round Clinical Reasoning [44.49237466254508]
  In clinical practice, physicians refrain from making decisions when patient information is insufficient.<n>This behavior, known as abstention, is a critical safety mechanism preventing potentially harmful misdiagnoses.<n>We propose KnowGuard, a novel paradigm that integrates systematic knowledge graph exploration for clinical decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T14:03:01Z)
• MedMMV: A Controllable Multimodal Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Verifiable Clinical Reasoning [35.97057940590796]
  We introduce MedMMV, a controllable multi-agent framework for reliable and verifiable clinical reasoning.<n>On six medical benchmarks, MedMMV improves accuracy by up to 12.7% and, more critically, demonstrates superior reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T05:51:25Z)
• RAD: Towards Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Multi-modal Clinical Diagnosis [56.373297358647655]
  Retrieval-Augmented Diagnosis (RAD) is a novel framework that injects external knowledge into multimodal models directly on downstream tasks.<n>RAD operates through three key mechanisms: retrieval and refinement of disease-centered knowledge from multiple medical sources, a guideline-enhanced contrastive loss transformer, and a dual decoder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T10:36:14Z)
• How to Evaluate Medical AI [4.23552814358972]
  We introduce Relative Precision and Recall of Algorithmic Diagnostics (RPAD and RRAD)<n>RPAD and RRAD compare AI outputs against multiple expert opinions rather than a single reference.<n>Large-scale study shows that top-performing models, such as DeepSeek-V3, achieve consistency on par with or exceeding expert consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T14:01:22Z)
• Automated Clinical Problem Detection from SOAP Notes using a Collaborative Multi-Agent LLM Architecture [8.072932739333309]
  We introduce a collaborative multi-agent system (MAS) that models a clinical consultation team to address this gap.<n>The system is tasked with identifying clinical problems by analyzing only the Subjective (S) and Objective (O) sections of SOAP notes.<n>A Manager agent orchestrates a dynamically assigned team of specialist agents who engage in a hierarchical, iterative debate to reach a consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T17:31:24Z)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• Silence is Not Consensus: Disrupting Agreement Bias in Multi-Agent LLMs via Catfish Agent for Clinical Decision Making [80.94208848596215]
  We present a new concept called Catfish Agent, a role-specialized LLM designed to inject structured dissent and counter silent agreement.<n>Inspired by the catfish effect'' in organizational psychology, the Catfish Agent is designed to challenge emerging consensus to stimulate deeper reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:59:50Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.