这篇论文让多个AI模型互相评审对方的思考过程，医学问答准确率比单模型高5个百分点，比投票集成也高3个百分点，有意思。
提出一种多智能体互审推理方法，让多个LLM独立生成链式推理与候选答案，再互相评审事实正确性与逻辑合理性，选择最高分推理链输出最终答案。在Llama-3.1-8B、Qwen2.5-7B、Phi-4、DeepSeek-LLM-7B、GPT-oss-20B五个模型上对HeadQA、MedQA-USMLE、PubMedQA三个基准测试，平均准确率达0.820，超过单模型最佳0.777和多数投票集成最高0.789。评审可靠性高，能有效区分优质与低质推理链。
Let LLMs Judge Each Other: Multi-Agent Peer-Reviewed Reasoning for Medical Question Answering
Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.