arXiv preprint ·
Constructing and Evaluating Clinical Reasoning Trajectories for Medical Agent
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Evaluation of medical artificial intelligence agents remains predominantly answer-centric, assessing only the correctness of final outputs while overlooking the quality of intermediate reasoning. In clinical settings, however, a correct answer reached through fabricated evidence or incoherent logic is as dangerous as an incorrect one. We propose MedTraj, a framework that treats reasoning trajectories as critical objects for construction, evaluation, and optimization. The pipeline generates structured multi-step reasoning chains from medical reasoning sources. Each trajectory is then parsed into clinical observations, evidence, numbered reasoning steps, and a final conclusion, and scored across five quality dimensions: coherence, evidence support, hallucination, completeness, and traceability. Controlled error injection introduces targeted faults into otherwise correct trajectories to establish causal links between specific reasoning failures and measurable quality degradation. Building on this, step-level filtering based on marginal contribution identifies which individual reasoning steps drive or undermine trajectory quality. Finally, quality-weighted context learning feeds trajectory evaluations back into the model at inference time, allowing it to learn from both strong and weak reasoning demonstrations. Experiments across CareQA, PubMedQA, and CECMed demonstrate that trajectory context consistently improves reasoning coherence, with gains of +0.029 to +0.041 over a zero-shot baseline. On CECMed, quality-weighted context nearly doubles the correctness over the zero-shot baseline while cutting the hallucination ratio by 87%. Marginal-contribution analysis further shows that a small minority of reasoning steps carry most of the quality signal, and that extending chains beyond four steps yields diminishing returns.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Global to Local: Topology-Preserving Adaptive Graph Pooling via Granular-Ball
Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models
A Tree-based RAG Framework for Evidence-Intensive QA via Adaptive Planning and Topology-Aware Evidence Gathering
Distilling Vision-Language Models for On-Device Fire Understanding
Language models judge war differently when tested for alignment
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.