OpenGray: a benchmark for evaluating the decisions of radiotherapy planning agents

In this work, we propose a prototype machine-to-machine (M2M) knowledge-guided Large Language Model (LLM) framework for automated radiotherapy treatment planning. In the proposed paradigm, Treatment Planning Parameter (TPP) distribution knowledge discovered by a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) agent is transferred to an LLM agent through in-context learning, enabling autonomous iterative planning without human intervention. While standard LLM-based planning often lacks physical intuition and struggles with convergence, the integration of DRL-derived guidance constrains the agent to a physically valid parameter space. Experimental evaluations are performed across three diverse planning scenarios: basic prostate cases, complex prostate configurations with increased organ-at-risk (OAR) constraints, and liver cases. The evaluation results demonstrate that the guided LLM agent consistently achieves optimal planning scores while significantly reducing the number of iterations compared to unguided planning. Analysis of the final TPP configurations reveals that the agent successfully learns a hierarchical priority of objectives, effectively restoring a logical "cause-and-effect" relationship between parameter tuning and dosimetric outcomes. Crucially, this prototype framework exhibits robust generalizability, maintaining high planning quality regardless of specific patient anatomy, treatment site, or initial plan quality. By bridging the specialized optimization of DRL with the adaptive reasoning of LLMs, this M2M framework establishes a scalable foundation towards generalizable autonomous treatment planning, ultimately benefiting clinical practice in realistic environments.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, but their reliability in complex oncology treatment planning remains unclear. We evaluated agentic LLM systems for breast cancer treatment recommendation generation using 72 real clinical cases across stages I to IV and 1,147 case-specific rubrics generated through Asymmetric Information Rubric Generation (AIRG), in which the rubric generator had access to real clinical decisions unavailable to the evaluated models. Seven pipelines were compared, including single-LLM baselines, tool-augmented systems, and multi-agent architectures with fact checking and autonomous subagent spawning. The best-performing configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 with the D&C+SA pipeline, achieved a global score of 0.594 $\pm$ 0.025. Tool use and increased agent autonomy had mixed effects, improving performance in some settings but degrading it in others. Performance varied by clinical domain and disease stage, and oncologist-led error analysis revealed persistent clinically relevant failures, including incorrect or missing recommendations, flawed justifications, citation errors, outdated claims, and overconfidence. These findings suggest that agentic LLM systems can generate clinically relevant breast cancer recommendations, but remain insufficient for unsupervised clinical use.

Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 $τ^2$-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks. The APB benchmark and code are available in this URL.