Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces MedDDC-Eval, a novel evaluation framework for multi-turn medical consultation agents that decouples the assessment of history elicitation from the diagnostic generation process. By maintaining a constant mapping from history to diagnosis, the authors reveal significant shifts in diagnostic performance metrics when altering the diagnostic reader, with F1 scores varying by up to 19 points. The framework enables more interpretable evaluations and supports the development of evidence-acquisition policies, demonstrating that the quality of history elicitation can be independently assessed from diagnostic outcomes.
Changing the diagnostic reader can dramatically shift performance metrics, revealing that history quality is often obscured in traditional evaluations.
Multi-turn medical consultation agents must decide what to ask, adapt to patient responses, and determine when the collected evidence is sufficient. However, coupled evaluation conflates the quality of the policy-elicited history with policy-specific terminal diagnosis generation: strong generation can compensate for a thin history, while weaker generation can obscure a rich one. We introduce MedDDC-Eval, a diagnosis-decoupled testbed that treats elicited history as the comparison object and holds the history-to-diagnosis mapping constant through a shared frozen reader. Across two held-out sources, a grounded interface and an auditable diagnosis-trajectory-efficiency (D/T/E) harness measure diagnostic usefulness, information acquisition, and efficiency. Directional semantic coverage followed by deterministic one-to-one assignment yields coherent precision-recall counts for open-ended items, with at most one credited match per prediction or reference. Holding histories fixed, changing only the diagnostic reader shifts diagnosis F1 by 2.2-19.0 points and reverses 18% and 36% of pairwise policy orderings on the Record and Dialogue splits. We further apply standard Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) over interactive multi-turn rollouts to post-train Qwen3-32B using diagnosis-result and trajectory feedback. On the 100-case Record and 70-case Dialogue splits, the trained policy improves over its initialization by 9.7 and 4.6 total-score points; removing either primary signal lowers held-out joint performance. These results show that MedDDC-Eval supports controlled attribution, interpretable elicited-history measurement, and evaluation-guided evidence-acquisition policy development.
