Papers
arxiv:2606.01961

AutoMedBench: Towards Medical AutoResearch with Agentic AI Models

Published on Jun 1
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

AutoMedBench presents a comprehensive benchmark for autonomous medical-AI research that evaluates agent performance across five workflow stages, revealing validation as the weakest stage and highlighting the importance of reliable pipeline execution and verification in medical AI workflows.

Autonomous agents are increasingly expected to support end-to-end medical-AI research workflows, moving beyond isolated prediction tasks or short-form clinical question answering. However, existing medical agent benchmarks primarily evaluate final outputs, providing limited visibility into agent behavior within the research process. To address this gap, we present AutoMedBench, a workflow-aware benchmark for autonomous medical-AI research across diverse medical imaging and multimodal inference tasks, organizing agent execution into a unified five-stage workflow (S1-S5): Plan, Setup, Validate, Inference, and Submit. It comprises long-horizon tasks with each run averaging 33 agent turns, spanning five research tracks: segmentation, image enhancement, visual question answering (VQA), report generation, and lesion detection. Each task is evaluated under two difficulty tiers, Lite and Standard, which use the same data and metrics but differ in the amount of task-brief scaffolding, and each run is scored using both final task performance and S1-S5 stage scores, enabling stage-level analysis from the initial task brief to the final submitted artifact. Across thousands of recorded runs, stage-level scoring reveals that Validate is the weakest workflow stage on average, whereas Setup is the strongest, suggesting that current agents are better at making pipelines executable than at verifying their reliability. Post-run error analysis further shows that verification and submission failures dominate tagged errors, accounting for 37.7% and 38.1% of fired codes respectively, whereas task-understanding errors are rare at 0.9%, and runs with one fired error code have a 48% lower overall score than runs with no error code on average.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2606.01961
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.01961 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.01961 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.01961 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.