Model confrontation and collaboration: A debate intelligence framework for enhancing medical reasoning in large...

Medical reasoning is fundamental to clinical decision-making, underpinning tasks such as patient communication, diagnosis, and treatment planning. Inspired by psychological findings that peer interaction promotes self-correction, we introduce model confrontation and collaboration (MCC), a debate intelligence framework that transcends static ensemble methods by integrating critique and self-reflection to iteratively refine reasoning through structured, multi-round confrontation and collaboration among diverse large language models (LLMs). In multiple-choice benchmarks, MCC achieved mean accuracy on MedQA (92.6%) and PubMedQA (84.8%) and demonstrated strong performance on medical subsets of MMLU. In long-form medical question answering, MCC outperformed all individual LLMs and the domain-specific LLM Med-PaLM 2 in both physician and layperson evaluations. In diagnostic dialog tasks, MCC further excelled in both history-taking and diagnostic accuracy, reaching a top-1 diagnosis rate of 80%. These results position MCC as a scalable, model-agnostic framework that advances medical reasoning through collaborative deliberation.