Dehao Sui

Yinghao Zhu, Yifan Qi, Zixiang Wang et al.

The rapid proliferation of scientific knowledge presents a grand challenge: transforming this vast repository of information into an active engine for discovery, especially in high-stakes domains like healthcare. Current AI agents, however, are constrained by static, predefined strategies, limiting their ability to navigate the complex, evolving ecosystem of scientific research. This paper introduces HealthFlow, a self-evolving AI agent that overcomes this limitation through a novel meta-level evolution mechanism. HealthFlow autonomously refines its high-level problem-solving policies by distilling procedural successes and failures into a durable, structured knowledge base, enabling it to learn not just how to use tools, but how to strategize. To anchor our research and provide a community resource, we introduce EHRFlowBench, a new benchmark featuring complex health data analysis tasks systematically derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Our experiments demonstrate that HealthFlow's self-evolving approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art agent frameworks. This work offers a new paradigm for intelligent systems that can learn to operationalize the procedural knowledge embedded in scientific content, marking a critical step toward more autonomous and effective AI for healthcare scientific discovery.

Lei Gu, Yinghao Zhu, Haoran Sang et al.

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.