MedAide: Towards an Omni Medical Aide via Specialized LLM-based Multi-Agent Collaboration

Large Language Model (LLM)-driven interactive systems currently show potential promise in healthcare domains. Despite their remarkable capabilities, LLMs typically lack personalized recommendations and diagnosis analysis in sophisticated medical applications, causing hallucinations and performance bottlenecks. To address these challenges, this paper proposes MedAide, an LLM-based omni medical multi-agent collaboration framework for specialized healthcare services. Specifically, MedAide first performs query rewriting through retrieval-augmented generation to accomplish accurate medical intent understanding. Immediately, we devise a contextual encoder to obtain intent prototype embeddings, which are used to recognize fine-grained intents by similarity matching. According to the intent relevance, the activated agents collaborate effectively to provide integrated decision analysis. Extensive experiments are conducted on four medical benchmarks with composite intents. Experimental results from automated metrics and expert doctor evaluations show that MedAide outperforms current LLMs and improves their medical proficiency and strategic reasoning.

ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive advancements across numerous disciplines, yet the critical issue of knowledge conflicts, a major source of hallucinations, has rarely been studied. Only a few research explored the conflicts between the inherent knowledge of LLMs and the retrieved contextual knowledge. However, a thorough assessment of knowledge conflict in LLMs is still missing. Motivated by this research gap, we present ConflictBank, the first comprehensive benchmark developed to systematically evaluate knowledge conflicts from three aspects: (i) conflicts encountered in retrieved knowledge, (ii) conflicts within the models' encoded knowledge, and (iii) the interplay between these conflict forms. Our investigation delves into four model families and twelve LLM instances, meticulously analyzing conflicts stemming from misinformation, temporal discrepancies, and semantic divergences. Based on our proposed novel construction framework, we create 7,453,853 claim-evidence pairs and 553,117 QA pairs. We present numerous findings on model scale, conflict causes, and conflict types. We hope our ConflictBank benchmark will help the community better understand model behavior in conflicts and develop more reliable LLMs.