Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical domains, but their ability to handle specialized neurological reasoning requires systematic evaluation. We developed a comprehensive benchmark using 305 questions from Israeli Board Certification Exams in Neurology, classified along three complexity dimensions: factual knowledge depth, clinical concept integration, and reasoning complexity. We evaluated ten LLMs using base models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and a novel multi-agent system. Results showed significant performance variation. OpenAI-o1 achieved the highest base performance (90.9% accuracy), while specialized medical models performed poorly (52.9% for Meditron-70B). RAG provided modest benefits but limited effectiveness on complex reasoning questions. In contrast, our multi-agent framework, decomposing neurological reasoning into specialized cognitive functions including question analysis, knowledge retrieval, answer synthesis, and validation, achieved dramatic improvements, especially for mid-range models. The LLaMA 3.3-70B-based agentic system reached 89.2% accuracy versus 69.5% for its base model, with substantial gains on level 3 complexity questions. The multi-agent approach transformed inconsistent subspecialty performance into uniform excellence, addressing neurological reasoning challenges that persisted with RAG enhancement. We validated our approach using an independent dataset of 155 neurological cases from MedQA. Results confirm that structured multi-agent approaches designed to emulate specialized cognitive processes significantly enhance complex medical reasoning, offering promising directions for AI assistance in challenging clinical contexts.

We present the first study on provably efficient randomized exploration in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL).

We introduce inductive biases for positive signalling and positive listening, which ease this problem. In a simple one-step environment, we demonstrate how these biases ease the learning problem.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

For a machine learning system to gain user trust, either its reasoning should to be transparent [Rudin, 2019, Freitas, 2014, Lakkaraju et al., 2016, Letham et al., 2015], or it should be capable of justifying

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

While artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise for addressing societal challenges, issues of exactly which tasks to automate and to what extent to do so remain understudied. We approach this problem of task delegability from a human-centered perspective by developing a framework on human perception of task delegation to AI. We consider four high-level factors that can contribute to a delegation decision: motivation, difficulty, risk, and trust. To obtain an empirical understanding of human preferences in different tasks, we build a dataset of 100 tasks from academic papers, popular media portrayal of AI, and everyday life, and administer a survey based on our proposed framework. We find little preference for full AI control and a strong preference for machine-in-the-loop designs, in which humans play the leading role. Among the four factors, trust is the most correlated with human preferences of optimal human-machine delegation. This framework represents a first step towards characterizing human preferences of AI automation across tasks. We hope this work encourages future efforts towards understanding such individual attitudes; our goal is to inform the public and the AI research community rather than dictating any direction in technology development.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/