Learning When to Collaborate: Selective Multi-Agent Medical Reasoning via Uncertainty-Aware Routing
Organizations: SIGS, Tsinghua University · Southern University of Science and Technology · Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology, China · West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. ·
Abstract
Multi-agent systems have emerged as a promising paradigm for multimodal medical reasoning, but existing methods rely on two assumptions that hinder practical deployment: (i) always-active dense collaboration among multiple agents, and (ii) dependence on large cloud-based models that raise privacy and efficiency concerns. In this paper, we challenge both assumptions and propose SMART-Med, a fully local multi-agent method that treats collaboration as a learnable decision rather than a default behavior. Our key insight is that not every medical query requires costly multi-agent deliberation: many can be reliably solved by a single well-trained agent, while only uncertain cases benefit from expert collaboration. Based on this insight, SMART-Med introduces an uncertainty-driven routing mechanism that adaptively decides when to answer directly and when to recruit a small subset of expert agents, effectively converting dense multi-agent reasoning into selective, query-adaptive coordination. To make this routing reliable, we curate a new multimodal medical dataset MedVR-3K with high-quality reasoning traces and a difficulty hierarchy, and then fine-tune local agents using GRPO with two complementary rewards: a certainty-aware accuracy reward and a vision-language reward model for correctness and reasoning quality respectively. Experiments on four medical visual question answering benchmarks show that SMART-Med achieves competitive performance compared to existing MAS approaches while substantially reducing inference cost (reducing inference time by more than 3.8x and token usage by 72%). Moreover, after fine-tuning on MedVR-3K, SMART-Med yields an average improvement of 6.7% across Slake, PathVQA, VQA-RAD, and PMC-VQA.
Figures & tables
| Category | Methods | Multiple-Choice Questions (MC) | Free-form Questions (FF) | |||||
| Slake | PathVQA | VQA-RAD | PMC-VQA | Slake | PathVQA | VQA-RAD | ||
| Single agent (Specialized model) | BiomedGPT | 53.5 0.3 | 57.0 0.7 | 52.0 0.2 | 41.5 0.7 | 54.7 0.8 | 39.5 2.2 | 54.8 3.4 |
| Med-Flamingo | 61.5 1.5 | 58.5 3.0 | 54.5 1.9 | 38.0 2.0 | 57.9 1.1 | 34.7 2.8 | 51.5 4.2 | |
| LLaVA-Med | 59.0 0.1 | 52.5 0.1 | 60.5 0.4 | 36.0 1.3 | 59.6 0.4 | 48.5 0.5 | 65.8 1.7 | |
| HuatuoGPT-Vision | 69.5 1.8 | 59.0 1.4 | 64.0 1.6 | 41.0 2.2 | 59.6 1.8 | 45.9 1.6 | 63.8 0.6 | |
| Single agent (Local models) | LLaVA-v1.6-7B | 65.0 0.5 | 52.0 1.2 | 54.0 0.7 | 32.0 2.1 | 52.4 2.8 | 31.3 0.7 | 50.8 2.9 |
| Score | MDAgent | MedAgent | SMOA | MOA | ColaCare | SMART-Med | SMART-Med * |
| LC | 2.89 | 3.31 | 3.48 | 3.42 | 3.28 | 3.24 | 3.55 |
| FC | 2.80 | 3.11 | 3.37 | 3.12 | 3.20 | 2.96 | 3.38 |
| IA | 2.56 | 3.19 | 3.29 | 3.40 | 3.18 | 3.14 | 3.57 |
| Avg. | 2.75 | 3.20 | 3.38 | 3.31 | 3.22 | 3.11 | 3.50 |
| Model | MC | FF | |||||
| Slake | PathVQA | VQA-RAD | PMC-VQA | Slake | PathVQA | VQA-RAD | |
| Single agent | |||||||
| 76.1 1.4 | 64.6 2.1 | 70.8 1.8 | 35.3 2.8 | 75.4 0.8 | 44.3 2.5 | 62.6 4.2 | |
| Multi-agent | |||||||
| + Dense collaboration | 78.5 0.3 | 66.7 2.4 | 71.3 2.2 | 50.1 0.5 | 75.7 2.8 | 51.2 1.7 | 64.5 1.7 |
| + Uncertainty routing | 76.7 1.0 | 68.6 1.3 | 72.5 0.5 | 48.5 2.1 | 78.2 1.3 | 48.7 0.2 | 64.1 3.2 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Slake | PathVQA | VQA-RAD | PMC-VQA | MedVR-3K | |
| Size | 4,717 | 26,516 | 1,778 | 4,000 | 3,477 |
| Answer | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Difficulty | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Modality | Radiology images | Pathology slides | Radiology images | Radiology images | Pathology + Radiology |
| Question Type | YES/NO/OPEN | YES/NO/OPEN | YES/NO/OPEN | A/B/C/D | YES/NO/A/B/C/D |
| Model | AURC | Acc.@100% |
| SMART-Med | 0.2669 | 66.0% |
| SMART-Med * | 0.2334 | 71.5% |
Multi-Agent Reasoning
Multi-Agent Reasoning studies how multiple AI agents share evidence, model one another, and coordinate decisions on complex tasks.
See all 233 papers