MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning
Extracted source text · arXiv 2311.10537
\documentclass{article}
% if you need to pass options to natbib, use, e.g.:
% \PassOptionsToPackage{numbers, compress}{natbib}
% before loading neurips_2023
% ready for submission
\usepackage[nonatbib, preprint]{neurips_2022}
\usepackage[pagebackref=true,breaklinks=true,colorlinks,urlcolor={red!70!black},linkcolor={red!70!black},citecolor={blue!60!black},bookmarks=false]{hyperref}
% \usepackage{hyperref}
% to compile a preprint version, e.g., for submission to arXiv, add add the
% [preprint] option:
% \usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2023}
% to compile a camera-ready version, add the [final] option, e.g.:
% \usepackage[final]{neurips_2023}
% to avoid loading the natbib package, add option nonatbib:
% \usepackage[nonatbib]{neurips_2023}
\setlength{\fboxrule}{0pt}
\usepackage{listings}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{xcolor} % colors
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{enumitem} % add this in the preamble
\usepackage{python}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usetikzlibrary{pgfplots.groupplots}
\usepackage{wrapfig, lipsum, booktabs}
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.3}
\usepackage{tikz}
% Custom packages
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage[group-separator={,},group-minimum-digits={3}]{siunitx}
\graphicspath{ {./} }
\UseRawInputEncoding
\hyphenpenalty=8000
% Ours environments
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{hhline}
\usepackage{bbding}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{arydshln}
\usepackage{vcell}
% This is also not strictly necessary, and may be commented out.
% However, it will improve the aesthetics of text in
% the typewriter font.
\usepackage{inconsolata}
\newcommand{\nlcode}{NL2Code\xspace}
\newcommand{\zan}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\fjdelete}[1]{\textcolor{gray}{#1 }}
\newcommand{\bei}[1]{\textcolor{pink}{#1}}
\newcommand{\passk}[0]{${\rm{pass}}@{k}$ }
\newcommand{\xinyun}[1]{\textcolor{red}{Xinyun comment: #1}}
\newcommand{\xr}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{Robert comment: #1}}
\newcommand{\ac}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{[#1 \textbf{-Arman}]}}
%\setcitestyle{numbers}
\newcommand{\cappyicon}{\includegraphics[scale=0.016]{figs/medagents.jpg}}
\definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92}
\lstdefinestyle{mystyle}{
backgroundcolor=\color{backcolour},
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
basicstyle=\ttfamily\footnotesize,
breakatwhitespace=false,
breaklines=true,
captionpos=b,
keepspaces=true,
numbers=left,
numbersep=5pt,
showspaces=false,
showstringspaces=false,
showtabs=false,
tabsize=4
}
\lstset{style=mystyle}
\title{\cappyicon \textsc{MedAgents:} Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning}
\author{%
Xiangru Tang$^{1,}$\thanks{Contributed equally.} \hspace{0.5mm}, Anni Zou$^{2,*}$, Zhuosheng Zhang$^{2}$, Yilun Zhao$^{1}$, Xingyao Zhang$$, \vspace{1mm}\\
\textbf{Arman Cohan$^{1}$, Mark Gerstein$^{1}$} \vspace{1.5mm}\\
$^1$Yale University,~~ $^2$Shanghai Jiao Tong University \\
\texttt{\{xiangru.tang, yilun.zhao, arman.cohan, mark.gerstein\}@yale.edu}
}
% The \author macro works with any number of authors. There are two commands
% used to separate the names and addresses of multiple authors: \And and \AND.
%
% Using \And between authors leaves it to LaTeX to determine where to break the
% lines. Using \AND forces a line break at that point. So, if LaTeX puts 3 of 4
% authors names on the first line, and the last on the second line, try using
% \AND instead of \And before the third author name.
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Large Language Models (LLMs), despite their remarkable progress across various general domains, encounter significant barriers in medicine and healthcare. This field faces unique challenges such as domain-specific terminologies and the reasoning over specialized knowledge.
To address these obstinate issues, we propose a novel Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework for the medical domain that
leverages role-playing LLM-based agents who participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion,
thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities.
This training-free and interpretable framework encompasses five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision.
Our work particularly focuses on the zero-shot scenario,
our results on nine data sets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MC framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise in LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities.
Based on these outcomes, we further conduct a human evaluation to pinpoint and categorize common errors within our method, as well as ablation studies aimed at understanding the impact of various factors on overall performance. Our code can be found at \url{https://github.com/gersteinlab/MedAgents}.
\end{abstract}
% Cite Rosalind
% Cite OpenAI GPT papers
\section{Introduction}
% Background: general to medical domain
Large language models (LLMs) \citep{few-shot, scao2022bloom, chowdhery2022palm, touvron2023llama, openai2023gpt4} have exhibited notable generalization abilities across a wide range of tasks and applications \citep{lu2023chameleon, zhou2023webarena, Park2023GenerativeAgents}, with these capabilities stemming from their extensive training on vast comprehensive corpora covering diverse topics.
However, in real-world scenarios, LLMs are inclined to encounter domain-specific tasks that necessitate a combination of domain expertise and complex reasoning abilities \citep{moor2023foundation, wu2023precedentenhanced, clinical, yang2023investlm}. Amidst this backdrop, a noteworthy research topic lies in the adoption of LLMs in the medical field.
With remarkable progress in the general domain, adaptation of LLMs to the medical field has gained increasing prominence \citep{zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned, bao2023discmedllm, clinical}.
% Challenges for llm-based methods in medical domain: lack of domain knowledge & errors in reasoning paths
Currently, there are two dominant challenges that hinder current LLMs from achieving medical-related tasks:
(i) The volume and specificity of training data in the medical field are limited compared with general web data used to train LLMs.
(ii) High performance in this field requires extensive domain knowledge and sophisticated reasoning abilities.
On one hand, although the general-domain knowledge within LLMs has more or less permeated into distinct specific realms \citep{yu2022legal,chen2023agentverse}, it remains insufficient for models to understand or recall the required medical expertise via simple and direct prompting \citep{kung2023performance, clinical}.
On the other hand, given the abundance of sophisticated terminology in medical knowledge \citep{schmidt2007expertise}, LLMs endure heightened demands when attempting to navigate this knowledge and reason upon it, potentially resulting in errors within their reasoning processes \citep{lievin2022can}.
%\ac{These two reasons should be very clear. Just consider saying something like: 1- the training data in the medical field is limited compared with general web data used to train llms 2- high performance in this field requires extensive domain knowledge and reasoning abilities.}
%Despite the potential of LLMs in the medical domain, there are two dominant challenges that hinder them from moving toward higher altitudes when facing clinical questions.
%Despite the potential of LLMs in the medical field, there are two major challenges that stand in the way of LLMs towards higher medical altitudes.
% Drawbacks of current methods
% 1. instruction-tuning: paucity of medical data + computational cost + time efficiency
% 2. lack of focus on reasoning abilities
%Confronted with the deficiency of existing general LLMs in the medical domain, there is a surging trend of methods striving to endow LLMs with enhanced proficiency in medical knowledge by means of instruction tuning \citep{han2023medalpaca, li2023chatdoctor, wu2023pmcllama, zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned}. These approaches resort to external knowledge bases \citep{li2023chatdoctor, wu2023pmcllama} or self-prompted data \citep{zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned} to create high-quality instruction datasets, which are subsequently leveraged to tune LLMs, ensuring better alignment with human intent in the medical field.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
%\vspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figs/overview.pdf}
\caption{A Diagram of our proposed multi-disciplinary collaboration framework. Given a medical question as input, the framework performs reasoning in five stages: (i) expert gathering: distinct domain experts are assembled based on the nature of the clinical question; (ii) analysis proposition: each expert, using their specific disciplinary knowledge, puts forward an analysis; (iii) report summarization: a consolidated report is generated incorporating all experts' analyses; (iv) collaborative discussion: the experts review, discuss, and refine the report iteratively until a consensus is reached; (v) decision making: a final decision, reflecting unanimous agreement among all experts, is derived from the report.}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
To close this gap, there is a surging trend of methods striving to endow LLMs with enhanced proficiency in medical knowledge by instruction tuning \citep{han2023medalpaca, li2023chatdoctor, wu2023pmcllama, zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned}.
These approaches resort to either external knowledge bases \citep{li2023chatdoctor, wu2023pmcllama} or self-prompted data \citep{zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned} to create instruction datasets, which are subsequently leveraged to tune LLMs, ensuring better alignment with human intent in the medical field.
Nevertheless, obtaining high-quality instruction tuning data in the medical domain is expensive, prone to privacy issues \citep{hipaa}, and thus not scalable. On the other hand, self-generated instruction data often lack sufficient quality and may need further human verification \citep{xu2023baize}.
% Nevertheless, the former suffers from a paucity of medical statistics due to the legal privacy issues \citep{hipaa}, whereas the latter struggles to ensure the quality of self-generated instruction data, thus placing a burden on manual labor for examination.
Furthermore, such instruction tuning methods inflict additional training costs and are not applicable to black-box LLMs. In addition, such methods do not necessarily emphasize improving the reasoning capabilities of the models~\citep{liang2023encouraging}.
% narrow emphasis on the reasoning process, thereby manifesting their drawbacks in terms of data scarcity, excessive costs, and reasoning incompetence.
% Motivation: agents
At the same time, as opposed to the conventional single \emph{input-output} pattern, recent research has surprisingly witnessed the success of LLM-based agents across a spectrum of tasks \citep{xi2023rise, wang2023unleashing}. Among such work, the design of multi-agent collaboration favorably stands out by highlighting the simulation of human activities \citep{du2023improving, liang2023encouraging, Park2023GenerativeAgents} and coordinating the potential of multiple agents \citep{chen2023agentverse, li2023metaagents, hong2023metagpt}. Through the design of multi-agent collaboration, the expertise implicitly embedded within LLMs or that the model has encountered during its training, which may not be readily accessible via traditional prompting, is effectively brought to the fore. In turn, this process enhances the model's reasoning capabilities over the course of multi-round interaction \citep{wang2023unleashing, wang2023rolellm, du2023improving, fu2023improving}.
%At the same time, despite the limited prowess of general LLMs in expertise-intensive tasks \citep{touvron2023llama, clinical}, recent research has surprisingly witnessed the success of LLM-based agents across a spectrum of tasks through role-playing and interactive mechanisms \citep{xi2023rise}. In essence, the key of LLM-based agents is the simulation of human activities such as debates \citep{du2023improving, liang2023encouraging} and collaboration \citep{wang2023unleashing, chen2023agentverse, li2023metaagents}, which inadvertently evokes implicit expertise concealed within LLMs as well as bolsters reasoning abilities over the course of multi-round interaction.
%Furthermore, when it comes to the medical realm, Multi-disciplinary Collaboration emerges as a common and effective scheme, which gathers specialists from distinct disciplines to engage in formal discussions over diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, aiming to exploit the synergy.
%Therefore, a promising tactic is to harness the power of medical agents via Multi-disciplinary Collaboration while obviating the need for extra training time and cost.
%demonstrated that role playing and collaboration of autonomous agents manage to further evoke and unveil the inherent expertise in various domains which is implicitly concealed within LLMs \citep{wang2023unleashing, chen2023agentverse, li2023metaagents}.
% recent research surprisingly witness the success of autonomous agents
% point is simulation of human activities: debate & collaboration & interaction... -> that can evoke implicit knowledge as well as bolster reasoning abilities
% therefore, apply Multi-disciplinary Collaboration to medical field in an efficient and interpretable way
% Our work
Inspired by the above ideas, we propose a \textbf{Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC)} framework in the clinical domain, aiming to unveil the intrinsic clinical knowledge from LLMs as well as bolster the reasoning competence in a training-free and interpretable manner. Specifically, the MC framework is based on five pivotal steps:
(i) expert gathering: gather experts from distinct disciplines according to the clinical question;
(ii) analysis proposition: domain experts put forward their own analysis with their expertise;
(iii) report summarization: compose a summarized report on the basis of a previous series of analyses;
(iv) collaborative consultation: engage the experts in discussions over the summarized report. The report will be revised iteratively until an agreement from all the experts is reached;
(v) decision making: derive a final decision from the unanimous report.
% Experimental results
Having established the theoretical foundation of our approach, we conduct experiments on MultiMedQA multiple-choice dataset \cite{clinical}, including MedQA~\citep{jin2021disease}, MedMCQA~\citep{pal2022medmcqa}, PubMedQA~\citep{jin2019pubmedqa} and MMLU medical topics ~\citep{hendrycks2020measuring}, similar to Flan-PaLM~\citep{clinical}. To better align with real-world application scenarios, our study focuses on a zero-shot setting. Encouragingly, our results reveal that across all tasks, our proposed approach outperforms settings for both chain-of-thought (CoT) and self-consistency prompting methods.
Most notably, our approach demonstrates better performance under the zero-shot setting compared with the few-shot (5-shot) capabilities of strong baselines.
Based on our results, we further investigate the influence of agent numbers and conduct human evaluations to pinpoint the limitations and issues prevalent in our approach. We find four common categories of errors:
(i) lack of domain knowledge; (ii) mis-retrieval of domain knowledge; (iii) consistency errors; and (iv) CoT errors.
Further refinements focused on mitigating these particular shortcomings would enhance the model's proficiency and reliability.
%We conduct ablation studies to delve into the impact of various components of our proposed method: Number of Agents, Boundary of Domain Knowledge in LLMs, and Interpretability of the Model.
%We find that each of these factors plays a critical role in the overall performance of the system. The number of agents contributes significantly to the breadth and depth of expertise brought to the reasoning process, providing a diverse range of medical knowledge and perspectives. However, there is an optimal limit to the number of agents involved (5 for most tasks), beyond which there may be diminishing returns or even potential confusion caused by information overload. Regarding the limits of domain expertise in LLMs, we take note of certain restrictions on what level of specialized knowledge these models can effectively retrieve and utilize. These constraints arise from two potential factors. First, while these models may have absorbed vast amounts of information, they sometimes struggle to recall or retrieve the specific domain knowledge accurately when needed. Second, it's also apparent that due to the complexity and specialized nature of some aspects of medical knowledge, especially rare or less-known medical conditions, these models may simply lack the necessary understanding.
%Lastly, the interpretability of our model is pivotal in understanding the reasoning process.
% Contributions
To sum up, our work has three major contributions as follows:
(i) We propose a multi-disciplinary collaboration framework for question-answering tasks in the medical domain. This novel approach endeavors to unveil the inherent clinical expertise present in LLMs and enhance their reasoning competence.
(ii) We present our experimental results on nine datasets. The results demonstrate the general effectiveness of the MC framework and show that our proposed MC framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise in LLMs.
(iii) We identify and categorize common error types in our approach through rigorous human evaluation to shed light on future studies.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{LLMs in Medical Domains}
Recent years have witnessed the impressive advancements brought about by LLMs across various domains \citep{ling2023beyond, wu2023precedentenhanced, clinical, yang2023investlm}, among which a promising and noteworthy application lies in the medical domain \citep{bao2023discmedllm, nori2023capabilities, rosol2023evaluation}. Although LLMs have demonstrated their potential in distinct medical applications encompassing diagnostics \citep{clinical,han2023medalpaca}, genetics \citep{duong2023analysis, jin2023genegpt}, pharmacist \citep{liu2023pharmacygpt}, and medical evidence summarization \citep{tang2023aligning, tang2023evaluating,shaib2023summarizing}, concerns persist when LLMs encounter clinical inquiries that demand intricate medical expertise and decent reasoning abilities \citep{umapathi2023med, clinical}. Consequently, it is of crucial importance to further tap into the medical expertise to arm LLMs with enhanced clinical reasoning capabilities. Currently, there are two major lines of research on LLMs in medical domains, namely tool-augmented methods and instruction-tuning methods.
For tool-augmented approaches, recent studies rely on external tools to acquire additional information for clinical reasoning. For instance, GeneGPT \citep{jin2023genegpt} guided LLMs to leverage the Web APIs of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) to meet various biomedical information needs. \citet{zakka2023almanac} proposed Almanac, a framework that is augmented with retrieval capabilities for medical guidelines and treatment recommendations.
\citet{kang2023knowledge} introduced a method named KARD to improve small LMs on specific domain knowledge by fine-tuning small LMs on the rationales generated from LLMs and augmenting small LMs with external knowledge from a non-parametric memory.
For instruction tuning methods, current research makes use of external clinical knowledge bases and self-prompted data to obtain instruction datasets \citep{tu2023towards, zhang2023pmc, singhal2023towards, tang2023gersteinlab}, which are then employed to tune LLMs on medical domains.
For example, LLaVA-Med \citep{li2023llava} leveraged a broad-coverage biomedical figure-caption dataset collected from PubMed Central and took advantage of GPT-4 to self-instruct open-ended instruction-following data from the captions in order to fine-tune a large general-domain vision-language model.
MedChatZH \citep{tan2023medchatzh} served as a dialogue model for traditional Chinese medical QA, which was pre-trained on Chinese traditional medical books and finetuned with an elaborated medical instruction dataset.
AlpaCare \citep{zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned} benefited from its large-scale and diverse medical instruction-following data MedInstruct-52k, resulting in remarkable generality and medical proficiency.
\subsection{LLM-based Multi-agent Collaboration}
The development of LLM-based agents has made significant progress in the community by endowing LLMs with the ability to perceive surroundings and make decisions individually \citep{yao2022react,nakajima2023task,xie2023openagents,zhou2023webarena}. Beyond the initial single-agent mode, the multi-agent pattern has garnered increasing attention recently \citep{xi2023rise, wang2023unleashing, li2023metaagents, hong2023metagpt} which further explores the potential of LLM-based agents by learning from multi-turn feedback and mutual cooperation.
In essence, the key to LLM-based multi-agent collaboration is the simulation of human activities such as role-playing \citep{wang2023unleashing, hong2023metagpt} and communication \citep{wu2023autogen, qian2023communicative, li2023camel}.
For instance, Solo Performance Prompting (SPP) \citep{wang2023unleashing} managed to combine the strengths of multiple minds to improve performance by dynamically identifying and engaging multiple personas over the course of task-solving. Camel \citep{li2023camel} leveraged role-playing to enable chat agents to communicate with each other for task completion. Several recent works attempt to incorporate adversarial collaboration including debates \citep{du2023improving, liang2023encouraging, xiong2023examining} and negotiation \citep{fu2023improving} among multiple agents to further boost performance.
\citet{liang2023encouraging} proposed a multi-agent debate framework in which various agents put forward their statements in a \emph{tit for tat} pattern. \citet{fu2023improving} let two LLMs play the roles of a buyer and a seller and negotiate with each other.
\section{Method}
This section presents the details of our proposed Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework. As is shown in Figure \ref{fig:overview}, the MC framework works in five stages:
(i) expert gathering: gather experts from distinct disciplines according to the clinical question;
(ii) analysis proposition: domain experts put forward their own analysis with their expertise;
(iii) report summarization: compose a summarized report on the basis of a previous series of analyses;
(iv) collaborative consultation: engage the experts in discussions over the summarized report. The report will be revised iteratively until an agreement from all the experts is reached;
(v) decision making: derive a final decision from the unanimous report.\footnote{Details about all guideline prompts are shown in Section \ref{sec:prompt} for clarification.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
%\vspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figs/prompt_example.pdf}
\caption{Illustrative example of our proposed Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework applied to a pediatric medical problem. The questions and options are first presented, with domain experts subsequently gathered. The recruited experts conduct thorough Question and Option analyses based on their respective fields. An initial report synthesizing these analyses is then prepared as a concise representation of the performed evaluations. The assembled LLM experts, possessing respective disciplinary backgrounds, engage in a discussion over the initial report, voicing agreements and disagreements. Ultimately, after iterative refinement and consultation, a unanimous report is generated that best represents the collective expert knowledge and reasoning on the given medical problem.}
\label{fig:example}
\vspace{-4mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Expert Gathering}
Given a clinical question $q$ and a set of options $op = \left\{o_1, o_2, \ldots, o_k\right\}$, the goal of the Expert Gathering stage is to recruit a group of question domain experts $\mathcal{QD} = \left\{qd_1, qd_2, \ldots, qd_m\right\}$ and option domain experts $\mathcal{OD} = \left\{od_1, od_2, \ldots, od_n\right\}$.
Specifically, we assign a role to the model and provide instructions to guide the model output the corresponding domains based on the input question and options: $\mathcal{QD} = \text{LLM}\left(q, \texttt{r}_\texttt{qd}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qd}\right)$, and $\mathcal{OD} = \text{LLM}\left(q, op, \texttt{r}_\texttt{od}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{od}\right)$,
where $\left(\texttt{r}_\texttt{qd}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qd}\right)$ and $\left(\texttt{r}_\texttt{od}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{od}\right)$ stand for the system role and guideline prompt to gather domain experts for the question $q$ and options $op$ respectively. An example of $\texttt{r}_\texttt{qd}$ and $\texttt{r}_\texttt{od}$ is shown below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\texttt{r}_\texttt{qd}: &\texttt{You are a medical expert who specializes in categorizing a specific medical} \\
& \texttt{scenario into specific areas of medicine.} \\
\texttt{r}_\texttt{od}: &\texttt{As a medical expert, you possess the ability to discern the two most relevant} \\
& \texttt{fields of expertise needed to address a multiple-choice question encapsulating} \\
& \texttt{a specific medical context.} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Analysis Proposition}
After gathering domain experts for the question $q$ and options $op$, we aim to inquire experts to generate corresponding analyses, which are prepared for later reasoning.
\paragraph{Question Analyses} \label{sec:qa}
Given a question $q$ and a question domain $qd_i \in \mathcal{QD}$, we ask LLM to serve as an expert specialized in domain $qd_i$ and derive the analyses for the question $q$ following the guideline prompt $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qa}$:
$ qa_i = \text{LLM}\left(q, qd_i, \texttt{r}_\texttt{qa}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qa}\right)$ As such, we manage to attain a set of question analyses $\mathcal{QA} = \left\{qa_1, qa_2, \ldots, qa_m\right\}$.
An example of $\texttt{r}_\texttt{qa}$ can be shown as:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\texttt{r}_\texttt{qa} : &\texttt{You are a medical expert in the domain of } qd_i. \texttt{From your domain, your goal is}\\
& \texttt{to scrutinize and diagnose the symptoms presented by patients in specific} \\
& \texttt{medical scenarios.} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\paragraph{Option Analyses}
Now that we have an option domain $od_i$ and question analyses $\mathcal{QA}$, we are able to further analyze the options by taking into account both the relationship between the options and the relationship between the options and question. Concretely, we deliver the question $q$, the options $op$, a specific option domain $od_i \in \mathcal{OD}$, and the question analyses $\mathcal{QA}$ to the LLM:
$ oa_i = \text{LLM}\left(q, od_i, \mathcal{QA}, \texttt{r}_\texttt{oa}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{oa}\right)$. In this way, we acquire a series of option analyses
$\mathcal{OA} = \left\{oa_1, oa_2, \ldots, oa_n\right\}$. An example of $\texttt{r}_\texttt{oa}$ appears below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\texttt{r}_\texttt{oa} : &\texttt{You are a medical expert specialized in the domain } od_i. \texttt{You are adept at}\\
& \texttt{comprehending the nexus between questions and choices in multiple-choice} \\
& \texttt{exams and determining their validity. Your task is to analyze individual} \\
& \texttt{options with your expert medical knowledge and evaluate their relevancy} \\
& \texttt{and correctness.} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Report Summarization}
In Report Summarization stage, we attempt to summarize and synthesize previous analyses from various domain experts $\mathcal{QA} \cup \mathcal{OA}$.
Given question analyses $\mathcal{QA}$ and option analyses $\mathcal{OA}$, we ask LLMs to play the role of a medical report assistant, allowing it to generate a synthesized report by extracting key knowledge and total analysis based on previous analyses: $ Repo = \text{LLM}\left(\mathcal{QA}, \mathcal{OA}, \texttt{r}_\texttt{rs}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{rs}\right)$, where $Repo$ can be formulated as: $\left[ \text{Key Knowledge}: \texttt{extracted knowledge}; \text{Total Analysis}: \texttt{synthesized analysis} \right]$. An example of $\texttt{r}_\texttt{rs}$ is illustrated below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\texttt{r}_\texttt{rs} : &\texttt{You are a medical report assistant who excels at summarizing and synthesizing.}\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\subsection{Collaborative Consultation}
Since we have a preliminary summary report $Repo$, the objective of the Collaborative Consultation stage is to engage distinct domain experts in multiple rounds of discussions and ultimately render a summary report that is recognized by all experts. During each round of discussions, the experts give their personal votes (\emph{yes}/\emph{no}) as well as modification opinions if they vote \emph{no} for the current report. Afterward, the report will be revised based on the modification opinions. Specifically, during the $i$-th round of discussion, we note the modification comments from the experts as $Mod_i$, then we can acquire the updated report as $Repo_i = \text{LLM}\left(Repo_{i-1}, Mod_i, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{mod}\right)$.
In this way, the discussions are held iteratively until all experts vote \emph{yes} for the final report $Repo_f$.
\subsection{Decision Making}
In the end, we demand LLM act as a medical decision maker to derive the final answer to the clinical question $q$ referring to the unanimous report $Repo_f$: $ans = \text{LLM}\left(q, op, Repo_f, \texttt{r}_\texttt{dm}, \texttt{prompt}_\texttt{dm}\right)$. An example of $\texttt{r}_\texttt{dm}$ is demonstrated below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\texttt{r}_\texttt{dm}: &\texttt{You are a medical decision maker skilled in making decisions based on}\\
& \texttt{summarized reports.} \\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\small
\caption{Summary of the Datasets. Part of the values are from the appendix of \cite{clinical}.}
\label{table:datasets}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Format} & \textbf{Choice} & \textbf{Testing Size} & \textbf{Domain} \\
\midrule
MedQA & Question + Answer & A/B/C/D & 1273 & US Medical Licensing Examination \\
\midrule
MedMCQA & Question + Answer & A/B/C/D and Explanations & 6.1K & AIIMS and NEET PG entrance exams \\
\midrule
PubMedQA & Question + Context + Answer & Yes/No/Maybe & 500 & PubMed paper abstracts \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{MMLU} & \multirow{2}{*}{Question + Answer} & \multirow{2}{*}{ A/B/C/D} & \multirow{2}{*}{1089} &Graduate Record Examination \\ & & & & \& US Medical Licensing Examination \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Setup}\label{sec:ex_setup}
\paragraph{Tasks and Datasets.}
We evaluate our MC framework on two benchmark datasets MedQA~\citep{jin2021disease}, MedMCQA~\citep{pal2022medmcqa}, and PubMedQA~\citep{jin2019pubmedqa}, as well as six subtasks most relevant to the medical domain from MMLU datasets ~\citep{hendrycks2020measuring} including anatomy, clinical knowledge, college medicine, medical genetics, professional medicine, and college biology. MedQA consists of USMLE-style questions with four or five possible answers. MedMCQA encompasses four-option multiple-choice questions from Indian medical entrance examinations (AIIMS/NEET). MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) covers 57 subjects across various disciplines, including STEM, humanities, social sciences, and many others.
The scope of its assessment stretches from elementary to advanced professional levels, evaluating both world knowledge and problem-solving capabilities. While the subject areas tested are diverse, encompassing traditional fields like mathematics and history, as well as more specialized areas like law and ethics, we deliberately limit our selection to the sub-subjects within the medical domain for this exercise, following ~\citep{clinical}. Table \ref{table:datasets} summarizes the data statistics.
\paragraph{Implementation.}
We utilize the popular and publicly available GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 \citep{openai2023gpt4} from Azure OpenAI Service.\footnote{\url{https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/openai/}} All experiments are conducted in the \textbf{zero-shot} setting. The temperature is set to 1.0 and \emph{top\_p} to 1.0 for all generations. The number $k$ of options is 4 except for PubMedQA (3). The numbers of domain experts for the question and options are set as: $m=5, n=2$ except for MedMCQA ($m=4, n=2$). Considering the costly API expenses, we randomly sample 100 examples for each dataset and conduct experiments with GPT-4 on them.
Details about the prompt templates involved in this study are listed in Appendix \ref{sec:prompt}.
\subsection{Main Results}\label{sec:ex_result}
Table \ref{tab:exp_result1} presents the main results on the nine datasets, including MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU. We compare our method with several baselines including CoT and self-consistency prompting in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. We select GPT-3.5-Turbo and an instruction-tuning variant Flan-Palm \citep{chung2022scaling} as the backbones of baselines following \citet{singhal2023towards}. Notably, our proposed MC framework outperforms all the zero-shot baseline methods by a large margin, indicating the effectiveness of our MC framework in real-world application scenarios. Furthermore, our approach surprisingly demonstrates comparable performance under the zero-shot setting compared with the strong baseline \emph{Few-shot CoT+SC}.
\begin{table}[t]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\caption{Main results on MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU including anatomy, clinical knowledge, college medicine, medical genetics, professional medicine, and college biology (Acc). SC denotes the self-consistency prompting method.}
\label{tab:exp_result1}
\small
%\begin{center}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
\rule{0pt}{1.2em}
\rule{0pt}{1.1em}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Method}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{MedQA}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{MedMCQA}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{PubMedQA}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Anatomy}}&\textbf{Clinical} & \textbf{College} & \textbf{Medical} & \textbf{Professional} & \textbf{College} \\
& & & & & \textbf{knowledge} & \textbf{medicine} & \textbf{genetics} & \textbf{medicine} & \textbf{biology}\\
\midrule \\[-1em]
\textbf{Flan-Palm} & & & \\
%\quad - \texttt{Zero-shot CoT}& - & - & - & - &77.0 & - & - & - & - \\
%\quad - \texttt{Few-shot CoT}&60.3&56.5&79.0&65.2&77.0&87.5&70.0&83.8&69.9\\
\quad - \texttt{Few-shot CoT}& 60.3&53.6&\textbf{77.2}&66.7&77.0&83.3&75.0&76.5&71.1\\
\quad - \texttt{Few-shot CoT + SC}& 67.6&57.6&75.2&71.9&80.4&88.9&74.0&83.5&76.3\\
\midrule \\[-1em]
\textbf{GPT-3.5} & & & & \\
\quad - \texttt{Zero-shot}& 50.4 &53.6 &71.8 &63.7 & 75.5 & 79.2 & 74.0 &77.6 & 77.6 \\
\quad - \texttt{Zero-shot CoT}& 52.1 & 50.2 &72.3&64.9&76.6&80.1&71.6&77.1&75.5 \\
\quad - \texttt{Few-shot}& 55.9&56.7&67.6&65.2&78.1&78.5&83.0&76.8&67.0 \\
\quad - \texttt{Few-shot CoT}& 60.7&54.7&71.4&60.7&74.7&80.6&70.0&75.4&67.0\\
\quad - \texttt{Few-shot CoT + SC}&64.0&59.7&73.4&64.4&78.5&84.7&76.0&82.0&74.0\\
\midrule \\[-1em]
\textbf{MC framework (Ours)} \\
\quad - \texttt{GPT-3.5}&63.7&58.3&72.9&65.3&77.8&81.3&79.2&82.7&79.4 \\
\quad - \texttt{GPT-4}& \textbf{83.0}&\textbf{72.0}&75.0&\textbf{81.0}&\textbf{89.0}&\textbf{95.0}&\textbf{94.0}&\textbf{96.0}&\textbf{81.0}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
%\end{center}
% \vspace{3mm}
\end{table}
\section{Analysis}
%\subsection{Ablation Study}
\subsection{Number of agents}
As our work proposes a Multi-disciplinary Collaboration (MC) framework in which multiple agents play certain roles to derive the ultimate answer, we explore how the number of collaborating agents in our MC framework influences the overall performance. We fix the number of option agents as 2 and vary the number of question agents from 1 to 8. We run the experiments on 50 samples from MedQA, MedMCQA and PubMedQA datasets. Table \ref{tab:num_agents} shows that the optimal number of question agents is 5 for MedQA, MedMCQA and 4 for PubMedQA, beyond which there may be diminishing returns or even potential confusion caused by information overload.
\begin{table}[htb]
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\centering\small
\caption{Optimal number of agents for the question on MedQA, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA.\label{tab:num_agents}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
{Dataset} & {MedQA} & {MedMCQA} & {PubMedQA} \\
\midrule
Number of agents & {5} & {5} & {4}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
%\subsubsection{Boundary of Domain Knowledge in LLMs}
%Regarding the limits of domain expertise in LLMs, we take note of certain restrictions on what level of specialized knowledge these models can effectively retrieve and utilize. These constraints arise from two potential factors. First, while these models may have absorbed vast amounts of information, they sometimes struggle to recall or retrieve the specific domain knowledge accurately when needed. Second, it's also apparent that due to the complexity and specialized nature of some aspects of medical knowledge, especially rare or less-known medical conditions, these models may simply lack the necessary understanding.
%Boundary of Domain Knowledge in LLMs: We sought to understand the extent of domain expertise encapsulated within Large Language Models (LLMs). By doing so, we could gauge the level of specialized knowledge that the LLMs possess and potentially embody in the medical setting.
\subsection{Error Analysis}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.42\textwidth}
\vspace{-20pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{figs/error.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Ratio of different categories in error cases.}
\label{fig:error}
\end{wrapfigure}
Based on our results, we conduct a human evaluation to pinpoint the limitations and issues prevalent in our model. We distill these errors into four major categories:
(i) Lack of Domain Knowledge: These errors occur when the model demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the specific medical knowledge necessary to provide an accurate response.
(ii) Mis-retrieval of Domain Knowledge: The model has the necessary domain knowledge but fails to retrieve or apply it correctly in the given context.
(iii) Consistency Errors: Such errors arise when the model provides differing responses to the same statement. The inconsistency suggests confusion in the model's understanding or application of the underlying knowledge.
(iv) CoT Errors: Errors under this category pertain to flawed reasoning sequences or lapses in logical cohesion. The model may form and follow inaccurate rationales, leading to incorrect conclusions.
We randomly select 40 error cases in MedQA and MedMCQA datasets and analyse the percentage of different categories in these error cases. As is shown in Figure \ref{fig:error}, the majority (77\%) of the error examples are due to confusion about the domain knowledge, which illustrates that although our method further mines medical knowledge concealed within LLMs by means of multi-disciplinary consultation, there still exists a portion of domain knowledge that is explicitly beyond the intrinsic knowledge of LLMs. As a result, our analysis sheds light on future directions to mitigate the aforementioned drawbacks and further strengthen the model's proficiency and reliability.
%\begin{table*}[htb]
%\centering
%\begin{small}
%\begin{tabular}{lc}
%\toprule
%\textbf{Category} & \textbf{Example} \\
%\midrule
%Lack of Domain Knowledge & \\
%\midrule
%Mis-retrieval of Domain Knowledge & \\
%\midrule
%Consistency Errors & \\
%\midrule
%Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Errors & \\
%\bottomrule
%\end{tabular}
%\caption{.} \label{error}
%\end{small}
%\end{table*}
%\subsection{Interpretability: Case Study}
%Interpretability of the Model: We inspected the transparency of the model's operations and decision-making processes. By improving interpretability, we aim to make the model's logical reasoning auditable and its outputs more explainable, crucial factors for any clinical application.
%An example of $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qd}$ and $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{od}$ appears below:
%\textbf{Question} : \texttt{A junior orthopaedic surgery resident is completing a carpal tunnel repair with the department chairman as the attending physician. During the case, the resident inadvertently cuts a flexor tendon. The tendon is repaired without complication. The attending tells the resident that the patient will do fine, and there is no need to report this minor complication that will not harm the patient, as he does not want to make the patient worry unnecessarily. He tells the resident to leave this complication out of the operative report. Which of the following is the correct next action for the resident to take?}
%\textbf{Options} : \texttt{(A) Disclose the error to the patient but leave it out of the operative report (B) Disclose the error to the patient and put it in the operative report (C) Tell the attending that he cannot fail to disclose this mistake (D) Report the physician to the ethics committee (E) Refuse to dictate the operative report}
%\textbf{Role} : \texttt{Medical Ethics}
%\textbf{$\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qd}$} : \texttt{Carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition that occurs when the median nerve, which runs from the forearm into the hand, becomes compressed at the wrist. This can cause numbness, tingling, and weakness in the hand and wrist. Carpal tunnel release surgery is a common treatment for this condition, which involves cutting the ligament that is pressing on the nerve to relieve the pressure.}
%\texttt{In this scenario, the junior orthopaedic surgery resident inadvertently cuts a flexor tendon during the carpal tunnel repair. The attending physician tells the resident not to report the complication and to leave it out of the operative report, as he does not want to make the patient worry unnecessarily.}
%\texttt{The correct next action for the resident to take would be to report the complication to the attending physician and document it in the operative report. It is important to be transparent and honest about any complications that occur during surgery, even if they are minor and do not harm the patient. This is an ethical obligation of healthcare providers to ensure patient safety and maintain trust with patients. Failing to report the complication and leaving it out of the operative report could be considered unethical and could potentially harm the patient if the complication is not properly addressed in follow-up care.}
%\textbf{$\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{od}$} : \texttt{In consideration of A: Disclose the error to the patient but leave it out of the operative report', Option A, which suggests disclosing the error to the patient but leaving it out of the operative report, is not a plausible answer. The attending physician has advised the resident to leave the complication out of the operative report, which is not an ethical practice. The operative report is a legal document that should accurately reflect the events that occurred during the surgery, including any complications that arose. Leaving out a complication from the operative report could be considered falsifying medical records, which is a serious ethical violation.}
%\texttt{In consideration of B: Disclose the error to the patient and put it in the operative report', Option B, which suggests disclosing the error to the patient and putting it in the operative report, is the correct course of action in this scenario. As a healthcare professional, it is the resident's duty to provide the patient with all relevant information regarding their care, including any complications that may have occurred during the procedure. The patient has the right to know what happened during their surgery and to make informed decisions about their care going forward.}
%\texttt{In consideration of C: Tell the attending that he cannot fail to disclose this mistake', Option C, which suggests that the resident should tell the attending that he cannot fail to disclose this mistake, is the correct course of action. This is because it is the ethical and professional responsibility of the attending physician to disclose all complications and adverse events to the patient, regardless of their perceived severity. The patient has a right to know what happened during their surgery and to make informed decisions about their care.}
%\texttt{In consideration of D: Report the physician to the ethics committee', Option D, which suggests reporting the physician to the ethics committee, is not a plausible answer in this scenario. While the attending physician's behavior is unethical, it does not warrant reporting him to the ethics committee. }
%\texttt{Cutting a flexor tendon during a carpal tunnel repair is a known complication that can occur even in the hands of experienced surgeons. However, it is important to document all complications in the operative report for several reasons. First, it ensures that the patient receives appropriate follow-up care. }
%\texttt{In consideration of E: Refuse to dictate the operative report', Option E, which suggests that the resident should refuse to dictate the operative report, is not a plausible answer. The resident has a professional and ethical obligation to accurately document all aspects of the surgery, including any complications that occurred. Failure to document the complication could lead to potential harm to the patient if the complication is not addressed in follow-up care. Additionally, accurate documentation is necessary for quality assurance and risk management purposes}
\section{Conclusion}
This paper presents a novel multi-disciplinary collaboration framework for the medical domain that leverages role-playing LLM-based agents who participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion. The framework is training-free and interpretable, encompassing five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision. Experimental results on nine datasets show that our proposed framework outperforms all the zero-shot baselines by a large margin and demonstrates comparable performance with the strong few-shot baseline with self-consistency. According to our human evaluations on error cases, future studies may further improve the framework by mitigating the mistakes due to the lack of domain knowledge, mis-retrieval of domain knowledge, and addressing consistency errors and CoT errors.
%
\bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
\bibliography{references}
\newpage
\appendix
\section{Prompt Templates}\label{sec:prompt}
Prompt templates involved in the experiments are as follows:
(1) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qd}$ for gathering question domains: \emph{You need to complete the following steps: 1. Carefully read the medical scenario presented in the question: \texttt{question}. 2. Based on the medical scenario in it, classify the question into five different subfields of medicine. 3. You should output in exactly the same format as: \texttt{Medical Field: | }.}
(2) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{od}$ for gathering option domains: \emph{You need to complete the following steps: 1. 1. Carefully read the medical scenario presented in the question: \texttt{question}. 2. The available options are: \texttt{options}. Strive to understand the fundamental connections between the question and the options. 3. Your core aim should be to categorize the options into two distinct subfields of medicine. You should output in exactly the same format as: \texttt{Medical Field: | }.}
(3) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{qa}$ for deriving question analyses: \emph{Please meticulously examine the medical scenario outlined in this question: \texttt{question}. Drawing upon your medical expertise, interpret the condition being depicted. Subsequently, identify and highlight the aspects of the issue that you find most alarming or noteworthy.}
(4) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{oa}$ for deriving option analyses: \emph{Regarding the question: \texttt{question}, we procured the analysis of five experts from diverse domains. The evaluation from the \texttt{question\_domain} expert suggests: \texttt{question\_analysis}. The following are the options available: \texttt{options}. Reviewing the question's analysis from the expert team, you're required to fathom the connection between the options and the question from the perspective of your respective domain, and scrutinize each option individually to assess whether it is plausible or should be eliminated based on reason and logic. Pay close attention to discerning the disparities among the different options and rationalize their existence. A handful of these options might seem right on the first glance but could potentially be misleading in reality.}
(5) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{rs}$ for report summarization: \emph{Here are some reports from different medical domain experts. You need to complete the following steps: 1. Take careful and comprehensive consideration of the following reports. 2. Extract key knowledge from the following reports. 3. Derive the comprehensive and summarized analysis based on the knowledge. 4. Your ultimate goal is to derive a refined and synthesized report based on the following reports. You should output in exactly the same format as: \texttt{Key Knowledge:; Total Analysis:}}
(6) $\texttt{prompt}_\texttt{mod}$ for modifying the report: \emph{Here is advice from a medical expert specialized in \texttt{domain}: \texttt{advice}. Based on the above advice, output the revised analysis in exactly the same format as: \texttt{Key Knowledge:; Total Analysis:}}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{62}
\expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
\bibitem[{Bao et~al.(2023)Bao, Chen, Xiao, Ren, Wu, Zhong, Peng, Huang, and Wei}]{bao2023discmedllm}
Zhijie Bao, Wei Chen, Shengze Xiao, Kuang Ren, Jiaao Wu, Cheng Zhong, Jiajie Peng, Xuanjing Huang, and Zhongyu Wei. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.14346} {Disc-medllm: Bridging general large language models and real-world medical consultation}.
\bibitem[{Brown et~al.(2020)Brown, Mann, Ryder, Subbiah, Kaplan, Dhariwal, Neelakantan, Shyam, Sastry, Askell, Agarwal, Herbert{-}Voss, Krueger, Henighan, Child, Ramesh, Ziegler, Wu, Winter, Hesse, Chen, Sigler, Litwin, Gray, Chess, Clark, Berner, McCandlish, Radford, Sutskever, and Amodei}]{few-shot}
Tom~B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert{-}Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel~M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020.
\newblock \href {https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Abstract.html} {Language models are few-shot learners}.
\newblock In \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual}.
\bibitem[{Chen et~al.(2023)Chen, Su, Zuo, Yang, Yuan, Qian, Chan, Qin, Lu, Xie et~al.}]{chen2023agentverse}
Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chen Qian, Chi-Min Chan, Yujia Qin, Yaxi Lu, Ruobing Xie, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors in agents.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10848}.
\bibitem[{Chowdhery et~al.(2022)Chowdhery, Narang, Devlin, Bosma, Mishra, Roberts, Barham, Chung, Sutton, Gehrmann et~al.}]{chowdhery2022palm}
Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung~Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et~al. 2022.
\newblock \href {https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.02311} {Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways}.
\newblock \emph{ArXiv preprint}, abs/2204.02311.
\bibitem[{Chung et~al.(2022)Chung, Hou, Longpre, Zoph, Tay, Fedus, Li, Wang, Dehghani, Brahma et~al.}]{chung2022scaling}
Hyung~Won Chung, Le~Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi~Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et~al. 2022.
\newblock Scaling instruction-finetuned language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416}.
\bibitem[{Du et~al.(2023)Du, Li, Torralba, Tenenbaum, and Mordatch}]{du2023improving}
Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua~B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14325} {Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate}.
\bibitem[{Duong and Solomon(2023)}]{duong2023analysis}
Dat Duong and Benjamin~D Solomon. 2023.
\newblock Analysis of large-language model versus human performance for genetics questions.
\newblock \emph{European Journal of Human Genetics}, pages 1--3.
\bibitem[{Fu et~al.(2023)Fu, Peng, Khot, and Lapata}]{fu2023improving}
Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Tushar Khot, and Mirella Lapata. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10142} {Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from ai feedback}.
\bibitem[{Han et~al.(2023)Han, Adams, Papaioannou, Grundmann, Oberhauser, Löser, Truhn, and Bressem}]{han2023medalpaca}
Tianyu Han, Lisa~C. Adams, Jens-Michalis Papaioannou, Paul Grundmann, Tom Oberhauser, Alexander Löser, Daniel Truhn, and Keno~K. Bressem. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08247} {Medalpaca -- an open-source collection of medical conversational ai models and training data}.
\bibitem[{Hendrycks et~al.(2020)Hendrycks, Burns, Basart, Zou, Mazeika, Song, and Steinhardt}]{hendrycks2020measuring}
Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020.
\newblock Measuring massive multitask language understanding.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300}.
\bibitem[{Hong et~al.(2023)Hong, Zheng, Chen, Cheng, Wang, Zhang, Wang, Yau, Lin, Zhou, Ran, Xiao, and Wu}]{hong2023metagpt}
Sirui Hong, Xiawu Zheng, Jonathan Chen, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka~Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, and Chenglin Wu. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00352} {Metagpt: Meta programming for multi-agent collaborative framework}.
\bibitem[{Jin et~al.(2021)Jin, Pan, Oufattole, Weng, Fang, and Szolovits}]{jin2021disease}
Di~Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. 2021.
\newblock What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams.
\newblock \emph{Applied Sciences}, 11(14):6421.
\bibitem[{Jin et~al.(2019)Jin, Dhingra, Liu, Cohen, and Lu}]{jin2019pubmedqa}
Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William~W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019.
\newblock Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146}.
\bibitem[{Jin et~al.(2023)Jin, Yang, Chen, and Lu}]{jin2023genegpt}
Qiao Jin, Yifan Yang, Qingyu Chen, and Zhiyong Lu. 2023.
\newblock Genegpt: Augmenting large language models with domain tools for improved access to biomedical information.
\newblock \emph{ArXiv}.
\bibitem[{Kang et~al.(2023)Kang, Lee, Baek, Kawaguchi, and Hwang}]{kang2023knowledge}
Minki Kang, Seanie Lee, Jinheon Baek, Kenji Kawaguchi, and Sung~Ju Hwang. 2023.
\newblock Knowledge-augmented reasoning distillation for small language models in knowledge-intensive tasks.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18395}.
\bibitem[{Kung et~al.(2023)Kung, Cheatham, Medenilla, Sillos, De~Leon, Elepa{\~n}o, Madriaga, Aggabao, Diaz-Candido, Maningo et~al.}]{kung2023performance}
Tiffany~H Kung, Morgan Cheatham, Arielle Medenilla, Czarina Sillos, Lorie De~Leon, Camille Elepa{\~n}o, Maria Madriaga, Rimel Aggabao, Giezel Diaz-Candido, James Maningo, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Performance of chatgpt on usmle: Potential for ai-assisted medical education using large language models.
\newblock \emph{PLoS digital health}, 2(2):e0000198.
\bibitem[{Li et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Li, Wong, Zhang, Usuyama, Liu, Yang, Naumann, Poon, and Gao}]{li2023llava}
Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00890}.
\bibitem[{Li et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Li, Hammoud, Itani, Khizbullin, and Ghanem}]{li2023camel}
Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al~Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock Camel: Communicative agents for" mind" exploration of large scale language model society.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760}.
\bibitem[{Li et~al.(2023{\natexlab{c}})Li, Zhang, and Sun}]{li2023metaagents}
Yuan Li, Yixuan Zhang, and Lichao Sun. 2023{\natexlab{c}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06500} {Metaagents: Simulating interactions of human behaviors for llm-based task-oriented coordination via collaborative generative agents}.
\bibitem[{Li et~al.(2023{\natexlab{d}})Li, Li, Zhang, Dan, Jiang, and Zhang}]{li2023chatdoctor}
Yunxiang Li, Zihan Li, Kai Zhang, Ruilong Dan, Steve Jiang, and You Zhang. 2023{\natexlab{d}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14070} {Chatdoctor: A medical chat model fine-tuned on a large language model meta-ai (llama) using medical domain knowledge}.
\bibitem[{Liang et~al.(2023)Liang, He, Jiao, Wang, Wang, Wang, Yang, Tu, and Shi}]{liang2023encouraging}
Tian Liang, Zhiwei He, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Yan Wang, Rui Wang, Yujiu Yang, Zhaopeng Tu, and Shuming Shi. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19118} {Encouraging divergent thinking in large language models through multi-agent debate}.
\bibitem[{Li{\'e}vin et~al.(2022)Li{\'e}vin, Hother, and Winther}]{lievin2022can}
Valentin Li{\'e}vin, Christoffer~Egeberg Hother, and Ole Winther. 2022.
\newblock Can large language models reason about medical questions?
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08143}.
\bibitem[{Ling et~al.(2023)Ling, Zhao, Lu, Deng, Zheng, Wang, Chowdhury, Li, Cui, Zhao et~al.}]{ling2023beyond}
Chen Ling, Xujiang Zhao, Jiaying Lu, Chengyuan Deng, Can Zheng, Junxiang Wang, Tanmoy Chowdhury, Yun Li, Hejie Cui, Tianjiao Zhao, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Beyond one-model-fits-all: A survey of domain specialization for large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18703}.
\bibitem[{Liu et~al.(2023)Liu, Wu, Hu, Zhao, Zhao, Zhang, Dai, Chen, Shen, Li et~al.}]{liu2023pharmacygpt}
Zhengliang Liu, Zihao Wu, Mengxuan Hu, Bokai Zhao, Lin Zhao, Tianyi Zhang, Haixing Dai, Xianyan Chen, Ye~Shen, Sheng Li, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Pharmacygpt: The ai pharmacist.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10432}.
\bibitem[{Lu et~al.(2023)Lu, Peng, Cheng, Galley, Chang, Wu, Zhu, and Gao}]{lu2023chameleon}
Pan Lu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Michel Galley, Kai-Wei Chang, Ying~Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023.
\newblock Chameleon: Plug-and-play compositional reasoning with large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09842}.
\bibitem[{Moor et~al.(2023)Moor, Banerjee, Abad, Krumholz, Leskovec, Topol, and Rajpurkar}]{moor2023foundation}
Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra Shakeri~Hossein Abad, Harlan~M Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric~J Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2023.
\newblock Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence.
\newblock \emph{Nature}, 616(7956):259--265.
\bibitem[{Nakajima(2023)}]{nakajima2023task}
Y~Nakajima. 2023.
\newblock Task-driven autonomous agent utilizing gpt-4, pinecone, and langchain for diverse applications.
\newblock \emph{See https://yoheinakajima. com/task-driven-autonomous-agent-utilizing-gpt-4-pinecone-and-langchain-for-diverse-applications (accessed 18 April 2023)}.
\bibitem[{Nori et~al.(2023)Nori, King, McKinney, Carignan, and Horvitz}]{nori2023capabilities}
Harsha Nori, Nicholas King, Scott~Mayer McKinney, Dean Carignan, and Eric Horvitz. 2023.
\newblock Capabilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375}.
\bibitem[{OpenAI(2023)}]{openai2023gpt4}
OpenAI. 2023.
\newblock \href {https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774} {Gpt-4 technical report}.
\newblock \emph{ArXiv preprint}, abs/2303.08774.
\bibitem[{Pal et~al.(2022)Pal, Umapathi, and Sankarasubbu}]{pal2022medmcqa}
Ankit Pal, Logesh~Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2022.
\newblock Medmcqa: A large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering.
\newblock In \emph{Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning}, pages 248--260. PMLR.
\bibitem[{Park et~al.(2023)Park, O'Brien, Cai, Morris, Liang, and Bernstein}]{Park2023GenerativeAgents}
Joon~Sung Park, Joseph~C. O'Brien, Carrie~J. Cai, Meredith~Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael~S. Bernstein. 2023.
\newblock Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior.
\newblock In \emph{In the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '23)}, UIST '23, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
\bibitem[{Qian et~al.(2023)Qian, Cong, Yang, Chen, Su, Xu, Liu, and Sun}]{qian2023communicative}
Chen Qian, Xin Cong, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Juyuan Xu, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2023.
\newblock Communicative agents for software development.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07924}.
\bibitem[{Roso{\l} et~al.(2023)Roso{\l}, G{\k{a}}sior, {\L}aba, Korzeniewski, and M{\l}y{\'n}czak}]{rosol2023evaluation}
Maciej Roso{\l}, Jakub~S G{\k{a}}sior, Jonasz {\L}aba, Kacper Korzeniewski, and Marcel M{\l}y{\'n}czak. 2023.
\newblock Evaluation of the performance of gpt-3.5 and gpt-4 on the medical final examination.
\newblock \emph{medRxiv}, pages 2023--06.
\bibitem[{Scao et~al.(2022)Scao, Fan, Akiki, Pavlick, Ili{\'c}, Hesslow, Castagn{\'e}, Luccioni, Yvon, Gall{\'e} et~al.}]{scao2022bloom}
Teven~Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ili{\'c}, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagn{\'e}, Alexandra~Sasha Luccioni, Fran{\c{c}}ois Yvon, Matthias Gall{\'e}, et~al. 2022.
\newblock \href {https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05100} {Bloom: A 176b-parameter open-access multilingual language model}.
\newblock \emph{ArXiv preprint}, abs/2211.05100.
\bibitem[{Schmidt and Rikers(2007)}]{schmidt2007expertise}
Henk~G Schmidt and Remy~MJP Rikers. 2007.
\newblock How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation.
\newblock \emph{Medical education}, 41(12):1133--1139.
\bibitem[{Shaib et~al.(2023)Shaib, Li, Joseph, Marshall, Li, and Wallace}]{shaib2023summarizing}
Chantal Shaib, Millicent~L Li, Sebastian Joseph, Iain~J Marshall, Junyi~Jessy Li, and Byron~C Wallace. 2023.
\newblock Summarizing, simplifying, and synthesizing medical evidence using gpt-3 (with varying success).
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06299}.
\bibitem[{Singhal et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Singhal, Azizi, Tu, Mahdavi, Wei, Chung, Scales, Tanwani, Cole-Lewis, Pfohl, Payne, Seneviratne, Gamble, Kelly, Babiker, Schärli, Chowdhery, Mansfield, Demner-Fushman, and Natarajan}]{clinical}
Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S.~Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, Perry Payne, Martin Seneviratne, Paul Gamble, Chris Kelly, Abubakr Babiker, Nathanael Schärli, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Philip Mansfield, Dina Demner-Fushman, and Vivek Natarajan. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock \href {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2} {Large language models encode clinical knowledge}.
\newblock \emph{Nature}, 620:1--9.
\bibitem[{Singhal et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Singhal, Tu, Gottweis, Sayres, Wulczyn, Hou, Clark, Pfohl, Cole-Lewis, Neal et~al.}]{singhal2023towards}
Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Le~Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Darlene Neal, et~al. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock Towards expert-level medical question answering with large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09617}.
\bibitem[{Tan et~al.(2023)Tan, Li, Huang, Yu, and Fan}]{tan2023medchatzh}
Yang Tan, Mingchen Li, Zijie Huang, Huiqun Yu, and Guisheng Fan. 2023.
\newblock Medchatzh: a better medical adviser learns from better instructions.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01114}.
\bibitem[{Tang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Tang, Sun, Idnay, Nestor, Soroush, Elias, Xu, Ding, Durrett, Rousseau et~al.}]{tang2023evaluating}
Liyan Tang, Zhaoyi Sun, Betina Idnay, Jordan~G Nestor, Ali Soroush, Pierre~A Elias, Ziyang Xu, Ying Ding, Greg Durrett, Justin~F Rousseau, et~al. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization.
\newblock \emph{npj Digital Medicine}, 6(1):158.
\bibitem[{Tang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Tang, Cohan, and Gerstein}]{tang2023aligning}
Xiangru Tang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock Aligning factual consistency for clinical studies summarization through reinforcement learning.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 5th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop}, pages 48--58.
\bibitem[{Tang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{c}})Tang, Tran, Tan, and Gerstein}]{tang2023gersteinlab}
Xiangru Tang, Andrew Tran, Jeffrey Tan, and Mark Gerstein. 2023{\natexlab{c}}.
\newblock Gersteinlab at mediqa-chat 2023: Clinical note summarization from doctor-patient conversations through fine-tuning and in-context learning.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05001}.
\bibitem[{Touvron et~al.(2023)Touvron, Lavril, Izacard, Martinet, Lachaux, Lacroix, Rozi{\`e}re, Goyal, Hambro, Azhar et~al.}]{touvron2023llama}
Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth{\'e}e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi{\`e}re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et~al. 2023.
\newblock \href {https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971} {Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models}.
\newblock \emph{ArXiv preprint}, abs/2302.13971.
\bibitem[{Tu et~al.(2023)Tu, Azizi, Driess, Schaekermann, Amin, Chang, Carroll, Lau, Tanno, Ktena et~al.}]{tu2023towards}
Tao Tu, Shekoofeh Azizi, Danny Driess, Mike Schaekermann, Mohamed Amin, Pi-Chuan Chang, Andrew Carroll, Chuck Lau, Ryutaro Tanno, Ira Ktena, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Towards generalist biomedical ai.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14334}.
\bibitem[{Umapathi et~al.(2023)Umapathi, Pal, and Sankarasubbu}]{umapathi2023med}
Logesh~Kumar Umapathi, Ankit Pal, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2023.
\newblock Med-halt: Medical domain hallucination test for large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15343}.
\bibitem[{{U.S. Department of Health and Human Services}(1996)}]{hipaa}
{U.S. Department of Health and Human Services}. 1996.
\newblock The hipaa privacy rule.
\newblock \url{https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html}.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Wang, Peng, Que, Liu, Zhou, Wu, Guo, Gan, Ni, Zhang, Zhang, Ouyang, Xu, Chen, Fu, and Peng}]{wang2023rolellm}
Zekun~Moore Wang, Zhongyuan Peng, Haoran Que, Jiaheng Liu, Wangchunshu Zhou, Yuhan Wu, Hongcheng Guo, Ruitong Gan, Zehao Ni, Man Zhang, Zhaoxiang Zhang, Wanli Ouyang, Ke~Xu, Wenhu Chen, Jie Fu, and Junran Peng. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock Rolellm: Benchmarking, eliciting, and enhancing role-playing abilities of large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310.00746}.
\bibitem[{Wang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Wang, Mao, Wu, Ge, Wei, and Ji}]{wang2023unleashing}
Zhenhailong Wang, Shaoguang Mao, Wenshan Wu, Tao Ge, Furu Wei, and Heng Ji. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05300} {Unleashing cognitive synergy in large language models: A task-solving agent through multi-persona self-collaboration}.
\bibitem[{Wu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Wu, Lin, Zhang, Zhang, Wang, and Xie}]{wu2023pmcllama}
Chaoyi Wu, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya~Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14454} {Pmc-llama: Towards building open-source language models for medicine}.
\bibitem[{Wu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Wu, Bansal, Zhang, Wu, Zhang, Zhu, Li, Jiang, Zhang, and Wang}]{wu2023autogen}
Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li~Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155}.
\bibitem[{Wu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{c}})Wu, Zhou, Liu, Lu, Liu, Zhang, Sun, Wu, and Kuang}]{wu2023precedentenhanced}
Yiquan Wu, Siying Zhou, Yifei Liu, Weiming Lu, Xiaozhong Liu, Yating Zhang, Changlong Sun, Fei Wu, and Kun Kuang. 2023{\natexlab{c}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09241} {Precedent-enhanced legal judgment prediction with llm and domain-model collaboration}.
\bibitem[{Xi et~al.(2023)Xi, Chen, Guo, He, Ding, Hong, Zhang, Wang, Jin, Zhou et~al.}]{xi2023rise}
Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et~al. 2023.
\newblock The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864}.
\bibitem[{Xie et~al.(2023)Xie, Zhou, Cheng, Shi, Weng, Liu, Hua, Zhao, Liu, Liu et~al.}]{xie2023openagents}
Tianbao Xie, Fan Zhou, Zhoujun Cheng, Peng Shi, Luoxuan Weng, Yitao Liu, Toh~Jing Hua, Junning Zhao, Qian Liu, Che Liu, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Openagents: An open platform for language agents in the wild.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10634}.
\bibitem[{Xiong et~al.(2023)Xiong, Ding, Cao, Liu, and Qin}]{xiong2023examining}
Kai Xiong, Xiao Ding, Yixin Cao, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2023.
\newblock Examining the inter-consistency of large language models: An in-depth analysis via debate.
\newblock \emph{arXiv e-prints}, pages arXiv--2305.
\bibitem[{Xu et~al.(2023)Xu, Guo, Duan, and McAuley}]{xu2023baize}
Canwen Xu, Daya Guo, Nan Duan, and Julian McAuley. 2023.
\newblock Baize: An open-source chat model with parameter-efficient tuning on self-chat data.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01196}.
\bibitem[{Yang et~al.(2023)Yang, Tang, and Tam}]{yang2023investlm}
Yi~Yang, Yixuan Tang, and Kar~Yan Tam. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13064} {Investlm: A large language model for investment using financial domain instruction tuning}.
\bibitem[{Yao et~al.(2022)Yao, Zhao, Yu, Du, Shafran, Narasimhan, and Cao}]{yao2022react}
Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022.
\newblock React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629}.
\bibitem[{Yu et~al.(2022)Yu, Quartey, and Schilder}]{yu2022legal}
Fangyi Yu, Lee Quartey, and Frank Schilder. 2022.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01326} {Legal prompting: Teaching a language model to think like a lawyer}.
\bibitem[{Zakka et~al.(2023)Zakka, Chaurasia, Shad, Dalal, Kim, Moor, Alexander, Ashley, Boyd, Boyd et~al.}]{zakka2023almanac}
Cyril Zakka, Akash Chaurasia, Rohan Shad, Alex~R Dalal, Jennifer~L Kim, Michael Moor, Kevin Alexander, Euan Ashley, Jack Boyd, Kathleen Boyd, et~al. 2023.
\newblock Almanac: Retrieval-augmented language models for clinical medicine.
\newblock \emph{Research Square}.
\bibitem[{Zhang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Zhang, Wu, Zhao, Lin, Zhang, Wang, and Xie}]{zhang2023pmc}
Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ziheng Zhao, Weixiong Lin, Ya~Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415}.
\bibitem[{Zhang et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Zhang, Tian, Yang, Chen, Li, and Petzold}]{zhang2023alpacareinstructiontuned}
Xinlu Zhang, Chenxin Tian, Xianjun Yang, Lichang Chen, Zekun Li, and Linda~Ruth Petzold. 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14558} {Alpacare:instruction-tuned large language models for medical application}.
\bibitem[{Zhou et~al.(2023)Zhou, Xu, Zhu, Zhou, Lo, Sridhar, Cheng, Bisk, Fried, Alon et~al.}]{zhou2023webarena}
Shuyan Zhou, Frank~F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, et~al. 2023.
\newblock \href {http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13854} {Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents}.
\end{thebibliography}