Quanzheng Li
Publications
LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Free Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings demands rigorous and reliable evaluation. However, existing medical benchmarks remain static, suffering from two critical limitations: (1) data contamination, where test sets inadvertently leak into training corpora, leading to inflated performance estimates; and (2) temporal misalignment, failing to capture the rapid evolution of medical knowledge. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics for open-ended clinical reasoning often rely on either shallow lexical overlap (e.g., ROUGE) or subjective LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, both inadequate for verifying clinical correctness. To bridge these gaps, we introduce LiveMedBench, a continuously updated, contamination-free, and rubric-based benchmark that weekly harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities, ensuring strict temporal separation from model training data. We propose a Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles. For evaluation, we develop an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge. To date, LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria. Extensive evaluation of 38 LLMs reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases, confirming pervasive data contamination risks. Error analysis further identifies contextual application-not factual knowledge-as the dominant bottleneck, with 35-48% of failures stemming from the inability to tailor medical knowledge to patient-specific constraints.
CoMMa: Contribution-Aware Medical Multi-Agents From A Game-Theoretic Perspective
Recent multi-agent frameworks have broadened the ability to tackle oncology decision support tasks that require reasoning over dynamic, heterogeneous patient data. We propose Contribution-Aware Medical Multi-Agents (CoMMa), a decentralized LLM-agent framework in which specialists operate on partitioned evidence and coordinate through a game-theoretic objective for robust decision-making. In contrast to most agent architectures relying on stochastic narrative-based reasoning, CoMMa utilizes deterministic embedding projections to approximate contribution-aware credit assignment. This yields explicit evidence attribution by estimating each agent's marginal utility, producing interpretable and mathematically grounded decision pathways with improved stability. Evaluated on diverse oncology benchmarks, including a real-world multidisciplinary tumor board dataset, CoMMa achieves higher accuracy and more stable performance than data-centralized and role-based multi-agents baselines.