{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/arxiv-2605-24699","title":"MDIA: A Multi-Agent Diagnostic Intelligence Pipeline on HealthBench Professional","arxiv_id":"2605.24699","date":"2026-05-23","proceeding":null,"authors":["Roberto Cruz","David Rey-Blanco"],"abstract":"Most reported gains on agentic-LLM clinical benchmarks are often attributed to prompt engineering, yet our results suggest that larger improvements can come from architectural and engine-level design. We present MDIA, a Multi-agent Diagnostic Intelligence Agent implemented as a 7-node specialty-routed clinical reasoning graph, on the full HealthBench Professional benchmark (n = 525), on a non-fine-tuned LLM. MDIA achieves 0.6272 under OpenAI's GPT-5.4-2026-03-05, which is +3.72 pp above the performance of OpenAI's ChatGPT for Clinicians. The experimental work shows that performance lift is attributable to system architecture: specialty routing, multi-turn context preservation, drug-state safety gating, site-filtered search, length-aware synthesis, and engine-level reliability. These findings support the view that agentic clinical benchmark performance is shaped both by the underlying foundation model and the orchestration architecture. Nevertheless, we also noticed notable differences when using other models as a grader; in particular, when using Gemini 2.5 Pro, MDIA scored 0.6585, which suggests that the choice of grader is a source of variability. Robust evaluation of LLMs would therefore require assessment across several independent grader models.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24699","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.24699","source":{"archive":null,"snapshot":"2025-07-28","note":"not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen at the snapshot)","row_kind":"graph","title_abstract_authors_date":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)"},"code_links":[],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers","read_at":"2026-09-24T18:15:14+00:00","read_at_is":"when the build read Syntology's graph, not when any sample ran","claim":"Per-sample execution status on synthesized fixtures; not a correctness claim about the paper. Samples come from repositories linked to the paper, official or community; repo_kind says which.","repos":[{"mentioned_in_github":null,"is_official":null,"provenance":"deterministic:regex_extraction","mentioned_in_paper":null,"url":"https://github.com/tietai/tietai-evals-public","reach":{"status":"gone","observed_at":"2026-09-16","how":"tree_404+repo_404"}}],"summary":{},"by_repo_kind":{},"repo_kind_vocabulary":{"official":"The archive marks this repository official for the paper","named_in_paper":"The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official","listed":"In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper","found_in_text":"Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted","community":"Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested"},"n_pointer_only_for_licence":0,"samples":[]},"arxiv_metadata":{"licence":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)","fields":["title","abstract","authors","date"],"primary_category":"cs.LG","source":"arxiv_2026.jsonl"},"syntology_extracted_results":null}