MAPLE: Elevating Medical Reasoning from Statistical Consensus to Process-Led Alignment

Recent advances in medical large language models have explored Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL) to enhance reasoning. However, standard TTRL often relies on majority voting (MV) as a heuristic supervision signal, which can be unreliable in complex medical scenarios where the most frequent reasoning path is not necessarily the clinically correct one. In this work, we propose a novel and unified training paradigm that integrates medical process reward models with TTRL to bridge the gap between test-time scaling (TTS) and parametric model optimization. Specifically, we advance the TTRL framework by replacing the conventional MV with a fine-grained, expert-aligned supervision paradigm using Med-RPM. This integration ensures that reinforcement learning is guided by medical correctness rather than mere consensus, effectively distilling search-based intelligence into the model's parametric memory. Extensive evaluations on four different benchmarks have demonstrated that our developed method consistently and significantly outperforms current TTRL and standalone PRM selection. Our findings establish that transitioning from stochastic heuristics to structured, step-wise rewards is essential for developing reliable and scalable medical AI systems

CoMMa: Contribution-Aware Medical Multi-Agents From A Game-Theoretic Perspective

Recent multi-agent frameworks have broadened the ability to tackle oncology decision support tasks that require reasoning over dynamic, heterogeneous patient data. We propose Contribution-Aware Medical Multi-Agents (CoMMa), a decentralized LLM-agent framework in which specialists operate on partitioned evidence and coordinate through a game-theoretic objective for robust decision-making. In contrast to most agent architectures relying on stochastic narrative-based reasoning, CoMMa utilizes deterministic embedding projections to approximate contribution-aware credit assignment. This yields explicit evidence attribution by estimating each agent's marginal utility, producing interpretable and mathematically grounded decision pathways with improved stability. Evaluated on diverse oncology benchmarks, including a real-world multidisciplinary tumor board dataset, CoMMa achieves higher accuracy and more stable performance than data-centralized and role-based multi-agents baselines.