Abstract--While prompt optimization has emerged as a critical technique for enhancing language model performance, existing approaches primarily focus on elicitation-based strategies that search for optimal prompts to activate models' capabilities. These methods exhibit fundamental limitations when addressing knowledge-intensive tasks, as they operate within fixed parametric boundaries rather than providing the factual knowledge, terminology precision, and reasoning patterns required in specialized domains. T o address these limitations, we propose Knowledge-Provision-based Prompt Optimization (KPPO), a framework that reformulates prompt optimization as systematic knowledge integration rather than potential elicitation. KPPO introduces three key innovations: 1) a knowledge gap filling mechanism for knowledge gap identification and targeted remediation; 2) a batch-wise candidate evaluation approach that considers both performance improvement and distributional stability; 3) an adaptive knowledge pruning strategy that balances performance and token efficiency, reducing up to 29% token usage. Extensive evaluation on 15 knowledge-intensive benchmarks from various domains demonstrates KPPO's superiority over elicitation-based methods, with an average performance improvement of ~6% over the strongest baseline while achieving comparable or lower token consumption. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance across diverse natural language processing tasks through sophisticated prompt engineering techniques [1]. The field has evolved from manual prompt design approaches [2], [3] to automated optimization frameworks [4]- [7], where optimizer LLMs iteratively refine prompts to maximize task performance. These automated approaches, collectively termed elicitation-based optimization, operate under the fundamental assumption that optimal prompts can unlock latent capabilities within pre-trained model parameters through strategic reformulation of instructions, exemplars, or reasoning templates.

As information grows exponentially, enterprises face increasing pressure to transform unstructured data into coherent, actionable insights. While autonomous agents show promise, they often struggle with domain-specific nuances, intent alignment, and enterprise integration. We present Enterprise Deep Research (EDR), a multi-agent system that integrates (1) a Master Planning Agent for adaptive query decomposition, (2) four specialized search agents (General, Academic, GitHub, LinkedIn), (3) an extensible MCP-based tool ecosystem supporting NL2SQL, file analysis, and enterprise workflows, (4) a Visualization Agent for data-driven insights, and (5) a reflection mechanism that detects knowledge gaps and updates research direction with optional human-in-the-loop steering guidance. These components enable automated report generation, real-time streaming, and seamless enterprise deployment, as validated on internal datasets. On open-ended benchmarks including DeepResearch Bench and DeepConsult, EDR outperforms state-of-the-art agentic systems without any human steering. We release the EDR framework and benchmark trajectories to advance research on multi-agent reasoning applications. Code at https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/enterprise-deep-research and Dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Salesforce/EDR-200

Scientific progress is driven by the deliberate articulation of what remains unknown. This study investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify research knowledge gaps in the biomedical literature. We define two categories of knowledge gaps: explicit gaps, clear declarations of missing knowledge; and implicit gaps, context-inferred missing knowledge. While prior work has focused mainly on explicit gap detection, we extend this line of research by addressing the novel task of inferring implicit gaps. We conducted two experiments on almost 1500 documents across four datasets, including a manually annotated corpus of biomedical articles. We benchmarked both closed-weight models (from OpenAI) and open-weight models (Llama and Gemma 2) under paragraph-level and full-paper settings. To address the reasoning of implicit gaps inference, we introduce \textbf{\small TABI}, a Toulmin-Abductive Bucketed Inference scheme that structures reasoning and buckets inferred conclusion candidates for validation. Our results highlight the robust capability of LLMs in identifying both explicit and implicit knowledge gaps. This is true for both open- and closed-weight models, with larger variants often performing better. This suggests a strong ability of LLMs for systematically identifying candidate knowledge gaps, which can support early-stage research formulation, policymakers, and funding decisions. We also report observed failure modes and outline directions for robust deployment, including domain adaptation, human-in-the-loop verification, and benchmarking across open- and closed-weight models.

High-performing medical Large Language Models (LLMs) typically require extensive fine-tuning with substantial computational resources, limiting accessibility for resource-constrained healthcare institutions. This study introduces a confidence-driven multi-model framework that leverages model diversity to enhance medical question answering without fine-tuning. Our framework employs a two-stage architecture: a confidence detection module assesses the primary model's certainty, and an adaptive routing mechanism directs low-confidence queries to Helper models with complementary knowledge for collaborative reasoning. We evaluate our approach using Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct, Phi-4 14B, and Gemma 2 12B across three medical benchmarks; MedQA, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA. Result demonstrate that our framework achieves competitive performance, with particularly strong results in PubMedQA (95.0\%) and MedMCQA (78.0\%). Ablation studies confirm that confidence-aware routing combined with multi-model collaboration substantially outperforms single-model approaches and uniform reasoning strategies. This work establishes that strategic model collaboration offers a practical, computationally efficient pathway to improve medical AI systems, with significant implications for democratizing access to advanced medical AI in resource-limited settings.

Large Vision-Language Models (L-VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in various vision and language tasks, including visual question answering (VQA). However, their high computational cost makes them impractical for resource-constrained settings and inference-heavy applications. In contrast, Small Vision-Language Models (S-VLMs) offer efficiency but suffer from a significant performance gap compared to their larger counterparts. In this work, we introduce the Model Parity Aligner (MPA), a novel framework designed to systematically improve S-VLMs by leveraging unlabeled images and effective knowledge transfer from L-VLMs. Instead of traditional knowledge distillation methods that rely on labeled training data, MPA employs a strategic parity-based approach that precisely identifies the knowledge disparities between S-VLMs and L-VLMs, and optimizes training by targeting only these disparities. We conduct extensive experiments on four diverse VQA benchmarks, namely TextVQA, ST-VQA, ChartQA, and OKVQA, each of which requires specialized reasoning capabilities such as text recognition, chart interpretation, and commonsense and factual understanding. Our results demonstrate that MPA consistently enhances the performance of S-VLMs on all benchmarks, reducing the performance gap while maintaining computational efficiency. We make our code publicly available.

Medical decision-making often involves integrating knowledge from multiple clinical specialties, typically achieved through multidisciplinary teams. Inspired by this collaborative process, recent work has leveraged large language models (LLMs) in multi-agent collaboration frameworks to emulate expert teamwork. While these approaches improve reasoning through agent interaction, they are limited by static, pre-assigned roles, which hinder adaptability and dynamic knowledge integration. To address these limitations, we propose KAMAC, a Knowledge-driven Adaptive Multi-Agent Collaboration framework that enables LLM agents to dynamically form and expand expert teams based on the evolving diagnostic context. KAMAC begins with one or more expert agents and then conducts a knowledge-driven discussion to identify and fill knowledge gaps by recruiting additional specialists as needed. This supports flexible, scalable collaboration in complex clinical scenarios, with decisions finalized through reviewing updated agent comments. Experiments on two real-world medical benchmarks demonstrate that KAMAC significantly outperforms both single-agent and advanced multi-agent methods, particularly in complex clinical scenarios (i.e., cancer prognosis) requiring dynamic, cross-specialty expertise. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/XiaoXiao-Woo/KAMAC.

Large language models (LLMs) have delivered significant breakthroughs across diverse domains but can still produce unreliable or misleading outputs, posing critical challenges for real-world applications. While many recent studies focus on quantifying model uncertainty, relatively little work has been devoted to \textit{diagnosing the source of uncertainty}. In this study, we show that, when an LLM is uncertain, the patterns of disagreement among its multiple generated responses contain rich clues about the underlying cause of uncertainty. To illustrate this point, we collect multiple responses from a target LLM and employ an auxiliary LLM to analyze their patterns of disagreement. The auxiliary model is tasked to reason about the likely source of uncertainty, such as whether it stems from ambiguity in the input question, a lack of relevant knowledge, or both. In cases involving knowledge gaps, the auxiliary model also identifies the specific missing facts or concepts contributing to the uncertainty. In our experiment, we validate our framework on AmbigQA, OpenBookQA, and MMLU-Pro, confirming its generality in diagnosing distinct uncertainty sources. Such diagnosis shows the potential for relevant manual interventions that improve LLM performance and reliability.

Effective communication is essential in cancer care, yet patients often face challenges in preparing for complex medical visits. We present an interactive, Retrieval-augmented Generation-assisted system that helps patients progress from uninformed to visit-ready. Our system adapts the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide into a dynamic retrieval-augmented generation workflow, helping users bridge knowledge gaps, clarify personal values and generate useful questions for their upcoming visits. Focusing on localized prostate cancer, we conduct a user study with patients and a clinical expert. Results show high system usability (UMUX Mean = 6.0 out of 7), strong relevance of generated content (Mean = 6.7 out of 7), minimal need for edits, and high clinical faithfulness (Mean = 6.82 out of 7). This work demonstrates the potential of combining patient-centered design with language models to enhance clinical preparation in oncology care.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare has been dominated by physician-centric, English-language benchmarks, creating a dangerous illusion of competence that ignores the interprofessional nature of patient care. To provide a more holistic and realistic assessment, we introduce HealthQA-BR, the first large-scale, system-wide benchmark for Portuguese-speaking healthcare. Comprising 5,632 questions from Brazil's national licensing and residency exams, it uniquely assesses knowledge not only in medicine and its specialties but also in nursing, dentistry, psychology, social work, and other allied health professions. We conducted a rigorous zero-shot evaluation of over 20 leading LLMs. Our results reveal that while state-of-the-art models like GPT 4.1 achieve high overall accuracy (86.6%), this top-line score masks alarming, previously unmeasured deficiencies. A granular analysis shows performance plummets from near-perfect in specialties like Ophthalmology (98.7%) to barely passing in Neurosurgery (60.0%) and, most notably, Social Work (68.4%). This "spiky" knowledge profile is a systemic issue observed across all models, demonstrating that high-level scores are insufficient for safety validation. By publicly releasing HealthQA-BR and our evaluation suite, we provide a crucial tool to move beyond single-score evaluations and toward a more honest, granular audit of AI readiness for the entire healthcare team.

The reliability of large language models (LLMs) is greatly compromised by their tendency to hallucinate, underscoring the need for precise identification of knowledge gaps within LLMs. Various methods for probing such gaps exist, ranging from calibration-based to prompting-based methods. To evaluate these probing methods, in this paper, we propose a new process based on using input variations and quantitative metrics. Through this, we expose two dimensions of inconsistency in knowledge gap probing. (1) Intra-method inconsistency: Minimal non-semantic perturbations in prompts lead to considerable variance in detected knowledge gaps within the same probing method; e.g., the simple variation of shuffling answer options can decrease agreement to around 40%. (2) Cross-method inconsistency: Probing methods contradict each other on whether a model knows the answer. Methods are highly inconsistent -- with decision consistency across methods being as low as 7% -- even though the model, dataset, and prompt are all the same. These findings challenge existing probing methods and highlight the urgent need for perturbation-robust probing frameworks.