LongMedBench: Benchmarking Medical Agents for Long-Horizon Clinical Decision-Making

An effective healthcare agent must be able to recall and reason over a patient's longitudinal medical history. However, the absence of datasets with realistic long-term dialogue timelines limits systematic evaluation. Real clinical text is constrained by privacy and ethics, while existing benchmarks focus on isolated interactions, failing to capture cross-session reasoning. We introduce a framework for synthesizing high-quality, long-term medical dialogues with LLMs. Our approach entails a knowledge-guided decomposition into three stages: constructing synthetic patient profiles with diverse disease and complication trajectories, generating multi-turn dialogues per encounter, and integrating them into a coherent longitudinal history dataset, MediLongChat. We establish three benchmark tasks-In-dialogue Reasoning, Cross-dialogue Reasoning, and Synthesis Reasoning-to evaluate the memory capabilities of healthcare agents. To assess data quality, we introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation framework combining vector-based metrics with LLM-as-a-judge assessments. Specifically, we define automatic measures-Faithfulness, Coherence, and Diversity-together with two LLM-based evaluations: Correctness and Realism. Benchmark experiments show that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with MediLongChat. These findings highlight the benchmark's applicability and underscore the need for tailored methods to advance healthcare agents.

We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.

Clinical practice is not the selection of an answer from enumerated options: a physician gathers heterogeneous information incrementally and commits to sequential, irreversible decisions under uncertainty. Static benchmarks cannot probe and existing interactive medical benchmarks each compromise on at least one of them. We present ClinEnv, an interactive benchmark that evaluates LLMs as attending physicians over real inpatient admissions under a paradigm we term Longitudinal Inpatient Simulation. Each case is automatically constructed into an ordered sequence of decision stages; at every stage the model must actively query four specialized agents before committing to medications, procedures, and diagnoses. ClinEnv scores both what the model decides, through deterministic ontology-grounded matching, and how it gathers information. Across seven models, the strongest reaches only 0.31 decision F1, and outcome quality is sharply decoupled from process quality. Difficulty concentrates in management decisions and later stages, where models recover discharge diagnoses far more reliably than management actions (0.51 vs. 0.17 F1) and continue to issue redundant queries as cases progress. ClinEnv makes this information-acquisition gap, invisible to outcome-only evaluation, directly measurable.