Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AURA: A Multi-Modal Medical Agent for Understanding, Reasoning & Annotation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AURA claims an LLM-driven generate-test-select loop can match or beat fixed ensembles at counterfactual chest X-ray explanation while preserving image identity better than one editor's ensemble.

desk verdict AURA is a competent agentic integration for chest X-ray counterfactual explanation whose central balance claim is plausible but under-supported by a selection/evaluation overlap and missing statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16940 v1 pith:AZANKSBD submitted 2025-07-22 cs.CV cs.LGcs.MA

Nima Fathi , Amar Kumar , Tal Arbel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LGcs.MA
keywords agenticAIcounterfactualexplanationchestX-rayself-evaluationvisual-linguisticlargelanguagemodelmedicalimagingexplainability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces AURA, an agentic AI system for chest X-ray analysis that combines a large language model with modular tools for segmentation, counterfactual image generation, and evaluation. The central claim is that an LLM-driven reasoning loop with self-evaluation—generating multiple candidate counterfactual images and scoring them with its own classification tool—can pick explanations that match or beat fixed ensembles of the underlying editors on diagnostic shift (CPG/CFR) while preserving more of the original image's identity (SSIM) than one editor's best ensemble. The authors argue this makes AURA the first visual-linguistic explainability agent that evaluates its own outputs, and they show it can adapt to vague user prompts by invoking a report generator to fill in missing pathological context. If correct, this demonstrates a practical payoff for agentic design in medical imaging: instead of static predictions, a system can reason, test hypotheses, and transparently justify its edits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is AURA's generate-test-select loop: the agent generates up to five candidate counterfactuals by varying hyperparameters of RadEdit and PRISM, then scores each candidate with TorchXRayVision's DenseNet121 multi-head classifier, selecting the candidate that achieves the highest improvement in the target pathology's score while preserving subject identity. A second mechanism, adaptive context-filling, lets the agent detect when a user prompt lacks pathological detail and invoke MAIRA-2 to generate a grounded report before editing. The whole loop is orchestrated by a ReAct-style reasoning cycle running on Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct, which produces executable code for tool calls and makes intermediate decisions visible to the user.

What would settle it

Evaluate AURA-selected counterfactuals with an independently trained pathology classifier or a panel of radiologists: if the CPG and CFR gains over fixed ensembles disappear, or if the classifier's flip rates can be inflated by subtle visual artifacts that do not correspond to real pathology removal, then the self-evaluation mechanism is gaming its own metric rather than producing clinically relevant edits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the CheXpert held-out test set, AURA, constrained to at most five generated counterfactuals per instance, achieves a counterfactual prediction gain (CPG) of 0.443 and a classifier flip rate (CFR) of 0.71, matching PRISM-Ensemble's 0.459 and 0.71, while its SSIM of 0.740 is notably higher than PRISM-Ensemble's 0.661 and its SIP of 0.060 is comparable to RadEdit-Ensemble's 0.059. The discovery is that an agent-driven generate-test-select loop—where the agent itself explores different generation settings and editing tools, produces multiple candidate counterfactuals, and internally scores them—can replace a fixed post-processing ensemble and yield a better balance between diagnostic shift and identity preservation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TorchXRayVision DenseNet121 pathology classifier, which AURA uses both to select the best counterfactual and to score success, is a trustworthy proxy for clinically meaningful diagnostic change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, agent-driven self-evaluation can replace hand-tuned post-processing for counterfactual selection, producing better identity preservation than PRISM-Ensemble while matching its diagnostic shift.
  • AURA's adaptive behavior lets it handle ambiguous prompts by invoking report generation, yielding more targeted edits than either editing tool run alone with generic prompts.
  • Because the full reasoning trace, difference maps, and pathology scores are displayed, AURA provides a transparent audit trail for each explanation.
  • AURA's on-premises deployment avoids sending patient data to external cloud APIs, a practical privacy advantage for clinical settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported gain may partly reflect the fact that the same classifier (TorchXRayVision DenseNet121) is used both for internal selection and for the headline metrics; an independent classifier or radiologist read would test whether the benefits generalize.
  • The generate-test-select template is generic enough to port to other imaging domains—MRI, CT, pathology slides—provided a domain-appropriate scorer and identity-preservation metric exist.
  • Agentic self-evaluation incurs a compute cost of up to five counterfactual generations plus classification per query; whether this beats a well-tuned static ensemble on cost-benefit remains an open comparison.
  • AURA's ability to fill in missing pathological context suggests that agentic systems could reduce the burden of precise prompting in clinical tools, but this requires validation on a wider range of user inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AURA, a ReAct-style LLM agent (Qwen2.5-Coder-32B) that orchestrates off-the-shelf medical imaging tools for chest X-ray analysis. The agent can invoke report generation, VQA, segmentation, and counterfactual editors (RadEdit, PRISM), then self-evaluate candidate counterfactual images using TorchXRayVision classification and pixel-similarity metrics to select the best output. The authors claim that this generate–test–select loop gives a superior balance of diagnostic shift (CPG/CFR) and identity preservation (SSIM/SIP) compared with fixed single-output or ensemble baselines, and that AURA adapts to ambiguous user queries by invoking report generation to recover pathological context. Experiments on the CheXpert test set are reported in Table 1 and in qualitative figures.

Significance. If the central claim holds, AURA would be a useful demonstration that LLM orchestration plus self-evaluation can improve practical explainability for medical imaging, and the open-source modular design is a concrete step toward interactive, transparent medical agents. The paper ships code and uses standard public tools and datasets, which is a strength. However, the main quantitative evidence is weakened by a metric-contamination problem: the agent's internal selection criterion and the headline evaluation metrics are computed with the same TorchXRayVision DenseNet121 classifier. Because the agent selects the candidate that most improves that classifier's pathology score, the reported CPG/CFR gains are partially optimized by construction rather than by an independent measure of diagnostic relevance. The absence of error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests further limits the strength of the comparative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.2, Table 1] The evaluation is partially circular. Section 2.2 states that AURA selects the candidate CF that achieves 'the highest improvement in the target pathology's score' using TorchXRayVision, and Section 3.2 defines CPG as the absolute change in TorchXRayVision DenseNet121 predictions and CFR as flips in its labels. Thus the selection criterion and the primary diagnostic-shift metrics are not independent, and AURA's CPG/CFR values in Table 1 may reflect optimization on the evaluation metric rather than clinically meaningful improvement. The paper should either (a) report CPG/CFR against an independent classifier or an expert annotation, or (b) clearly separate the selection metric from the reported metric and quantify the selection-induced bias, for example by evaluating the unselected candidates' CPG/CFR.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 1] Table 1 reports point estimates only, with no sample size, error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claim that AURA shows a 'superior balance' is based on small point-estimate differences (e.g., CPG 0.443 vs. 0.459, CFR 0.71 vs. 0.71, SSIM 0.740 vs. 0.661). Without variance estimates it is impossible to tell whether these differences are robust. The authors should report the number of test images, per-method standard deviations or bootstrap intervals, and pairwise significance tests where appropriate.
  3. [Section 3.2, baseline ensemble protocol] The description of the ensemble baselines is underspecified. The text says a 'post-processing script is then used to select the best-performing CF from the ensemble based on external metric evaluation,' but it does not state which metric is used for that selection. If the same TorchXRayVision-based CPG/CFR is used to select ensemble outputs, then the ensemble baselines also benefit from metric-based selection, making the comparison fairer but also reinforcing the circularity concern. If a different metric is used, it should be named and justified. The authors should clarify this point and, ideally, report results for the ensemble under both selection rules.
  4. [Section 3.2, CPG/CFR definitions] The definitions of CPG and CFR are not fully precise. CPG is described as the absolute difference in DenseNet121 predictions, but it is not stated whether this is averaged across all pathology classes, only the target class, or across classes weighted by prevalence. CFR is defined as the number of samples with flipped predictions, but it is not clear whether a flip is a change in any class label, a change in the target class, or a change in the predicted binary threshold. These choices materially affect the reported numbers and should be specified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The paper says evaluation uses the 'held-out test set of the publicly available CheXpert dataset' and adopts 'the identical data split used by PRISM,' but the number of images in the evaluation set is never reported. Please state the sample size for each reported metric.
  2. [Section 2.2] The self-evaluation workflow is described as 'generate several candidate CF images using RadEdit and PRISM with varying hyper-parameters,' but no details are given on the ranges of the hyper-parameters (guidance scale, inference steps, etc.) or how many candidates are typically generated. Adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure 3] Figure 3's right panel reports 'CPG and SIP plots' but the axes and units are not described in the caption, and no error bars or statistical comparisons are shown. Please clarify what is plotted and how the values were aggregated.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'Obser ve' in Algorithm 1, a duplicated citation '[18]; [18];' in Section 3.2, 'Blomarkers' in Reference [14], and inconsistent use of 'AURA' with or without surrounding spacing. These should be corrected.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The paper claims AURA is 'the first visual linguistic explainability agent' for medical images. Given the rapid proliferation of medical agent frameworks (several of which are cited in the introduction), the 'first' claim should be either more carefully qualified or supported by a focused comparison with prior explainability agents.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Self-evaluation loop optimizes the same TorchXRayVision classifier scores that define the headline CPG/CFR metrics, so the diagnostic-shift advantage is partly by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Modular Architecture for Self-Evaluation) and Section 3.2 (Agentic Image-based Explainability via CF Image Generation)]
    "Leverage TorchXRayVision [4] to classify pathological structures in the original and for each CF, candidate explanation image. Compare pathology and similarity scores, selecting CF that achieves the highest improvement in the target pathology's score while effectively preserving subject identity ... (ii) Counterfactual Prediction Gain (CPG) measures the absolute difference in an off-the-shelf DenseNet121 [10] multi-head classifier's predictions (from TorchXRayVision [4]) between factual and CF images [19] ..."

    AURA's generate-test-select loop chooses the candidate that maximizes the change in the TorchXRayVision DenseNet121 pathology score, and CPG is defined as the absolute change in that same classifier's predictions; CFR counts flips of that same classifier's labels. The reported CPG/CFR are therefore the selection objective restated as an outcome, not an independent test of whether the self-evaluation produces clinically better counterfactuals. Identity terms provide partial independent evidence, but 'preserving subject identity' is also part of the selection criterion, and AURA's point estimates do not dominate on SSIM/SIP.

full rationale

Section 2.2 states that AURA selects the counterfactual that achieves the highest improvement in the target pathology score using TorchXRayVision. Section 3.2 then defines CPG as the absolute change in that same TorchXRayVision DenseNet121 prediction and CFR as the flip rate of that classifier. Consequently, AURA's CPG/CFR numbers in Table 1 are not independent evidence for the value of the agent's self-evaluation; they measure the same function the agent optimizes. The ensemble baselines also use a post-processing script that selects the best CF based on external metric evaluation, so the comparison is not necessarily unfair, but this does not remove the circularity in using CPG/CFR to validate the mechanism. SSIM and SIP are pixel-based and partially independent, yet the paper's own selection includes similarity/identity preservation, and the headline claim is a 'balance' that leans on the classifier-defined CPG/CFR. The adaptive reasoning and report-generation results in Section 3.3 are separate contributions and keep this from being a fully circular paper, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The agent inherits all assumptions from its off-the-shelf tools. No parameters are fitted in the paper, but the evaluation depends on tool correctness, the validity of TorchXRayVision as a clinical proxy, and the representativeness of the CheXpert test split. The main circularity risk is the overlap between the internal selection classifier and the external evaluation metrics.

free parameters (1)
  • Counterfactual generation hyperparameter ranges (guidance scale, inference steps) = not reported
    Section 3.2 says candidates are generated by varying guidance scale and inference steps, plus RadEdit grounded and ungrounded conditions, but the exact values and ranges are not given. Results depend on these hand-chosen settings.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf tools (MAIRA-2, CheXAgent, RadEdit, PRISM, MedSAM, TorchXRayVision) produce correct and clinically useful intermediate outputs.
    AURA does not train or fine-tune its tools; all downstream reasoning depends on their correctness. Section 2.1 treats them as reliable actors.
  • domain assumption TorchXRayVision classifier predictions are a valid proxy for clinically meaningful counterfactual improvement.
    CPG and CFR are computed from this classifier and the same classifier is used for internal selection. No clinical validation or expert study supports this proxy. Section 3.2.
  • domain assumption The CheXpert held-out test set used by PRISM is sufficient to evaluate general clinical utility.
    Evaluation is restricted to one dataset with no external validation. Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The ReAct loop with Qwen2.5-Coder reliably selects and executes the right tools without error propagation.
    Algorithm 1 assumes tool calls succeed and outputs are correctly incorporated into memory. The paper does not report tool failure rates or error analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AURA: A Multi-Modal Medical Agent for Understanding, Reasoning & Annotation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZANKSBD

@misc{pith2026250716940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AURA: A Multi-Modal Medical Agent for Understanding, Reasoning & Annotation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZANKSBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16940}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed a paradigm shift from static prediction systems to agentic AI agents capable of reasoning, interacting with tools, and adapting to complex tasks. While LLM-based agentic systems have shown promise across many domains, their application to medical imaging remains in its infancy. In this work, we introduce AURA, the first visual linguistic explainability agent designed specifically for comprehensive analysis, explanation, and evaluation of medical images. By enabling dynamic interactions, contextual explanations, and hypothesis testing, AURA represents a significant advancement toward more transparent, adaptable, and clinically aligned AI systems. We highlight the promise of agentic AI in transforming medical image analysis from static predictions to interactive decision support. Leveraging Qwen-32B, an LLM-based architecture, AURA integrates a modular toolbox comprising: (i) a segmentation suite with phase grounding, pathology segmentation, and anatomy segmentation to localize clinically meaningful regions; (ii) a counterfactual image-generation module that supports reasoning through image-level explanations; and (iii) a set of evaluation tools including pixel-wise difference-map analysis, classification, and advanced state-of-the-art components to assess diagnostic relevance and visual interpretability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AURA architecture integrates a reasoning loop that dynamically se￾lects from a multimodal ecosystem of tools. The agent iteratively reasons over image-query pairs, generates code to invoke tools, and observes their resulting outputs to synthesize high-quality visual and textual medical explanations. Re￾Act framework enables visualization and control of the agent’s reasoning process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. AURA Explainability Flow. AURA handles an open-ended clinical question by analyzing the image, localizing findings, and producing both visual and linguistic explanations. The interface displays intermediate results and self￾evaluations to ensure transparency. Note: The thought behind evaluation and selecting the final image is described in the image. Zoom in for better visibility. and robust function calls for seaml… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Adaptive CF generation from user queries. This figure illustrates AURA’s agentic reasoning. Given an ambiguous query (top-left), AURA au￾tonomously identifies limited pathology knowledge, calls a report tool, and gen￾erates a precise prompt (bottom-middle). Bounding boxes indicate the area of interest for each edit. Top: Baselines (PRISM/RadEdit) utilise generic prompts, resulting in over- or under-editing respectiv… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Aligning Clinical Needs and AI Capabilities: A Survey on LLMs for Medical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    IEEE Access (2025)

    Acharya, D.B., Kuppan, K., Divya, B.: Agentic ai: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals–a comprehensive survey. IEEE Access (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04449 (2024)

    Bannur, S., Bouzid, K., Castro, D.C., Schwaighofer, A., Thieme, A., Bond-Taylor, S., Ilse, M., Pérez-García, F., Salvatelli, V., Sharma, H., et al.: Maira-2: Grounded radiology report generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04449 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12208 (2024)

    Chen, Z., Varma, M., Delbrouck, J.B., Paschali, M., Blankemeier, L., Van Veen, D., Valanarasu, J.M.J., Youssef, A., Cohen, J.P., Reis, E.P., et al.: Chexagent: Towards a foundation model for chest x-ray interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12208 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    In: International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

    Cohen, J.P., Viviano, J.D., Bertin, P., Morrison, P., Torabian, P., Guarrera, M., Lungren, M.P., Chaudhari, A., Brooks, R., Hashir, M., et al.: Torchxrayvision: A library of chest x-ray datasets and models. In: International Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. pp. 231–249. PMLR (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

    Fallahpour, A., Ma, J., Munim, A., Lyu, H., Wang, B.: Medrax: Medical reasoning agent for chest x-ray. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    DeCoDEx: Confounder Detector Guidance for Improved Diffusion-based Counterfactual Explanations

    Fathi, N., Kumar, A., Nichyporuk, B., Havaei, M., Arbel, T.: Decodex: Confounder detector guidance for improved diffusion-based counterfactual explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09288 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Journal of Computer Information Systems pp

    Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Malik, T., Shawosh, M., Albashrawi, M.A., Jeon, I., Dutot, V., Appanderanda, M., Crick, T., De’, R., et al.: Ai agents and agentic systems: A multi-expert analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems pp. 1–29 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    5-coder technical report

    Hui, B., Yang, J., Cui, Z., Yang, J., Liu, D., Zhang, L., Liu, T., Zhang, J., Yu, B., Dang, K., et al.: Qwen2. 5-coder technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    Hurst, A., Lerer, A., Goucher, A.P., Perelman, A., Ramesh, A., Clark, A., Os- trow, A., Welihinda, A., Hayes, A., Radford, A., et al.: Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.1869 (2014)

    Iandola, F., Moskewicz, M., Karayev, S., Girshick, R., Darrell, T., Keutzer, K.: Densenet: Implementing efficient convnet descriptor pyramids. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.1869 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    Irvin, J., Rajpurkar, P., Ko, M., Yu, Y., Ciurea-Ilcus, S., Chute, C., Marklund, H., Haghgoo, B., Ball, R., Shpanskaya, K., et al.: Chexpert: A large chest radiograph dataset with uncertainty labels and expert comparison. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial in...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Infor- matics and Health2(2), 73–83 (2025)

    Karunanayake, N.: Next-generation agentic ai for transforming healthcare. Infor- matics and Health2(2), 73–83 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 79410–79452 (2024)

    Kim, Y., Park, C., Jeong, H., Chan, Y.S., Xu, X., McDuff, D., Lee, H., Ghassemi, M., Breazeal, C., Park, H.W.: Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 79410–79452 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    In: MICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Assisted Blomarkers’ Discovery

    Kumar,A.,Hu,A.,Nichyporuk,B.,Falet,J.P.R.,Arnold,D.L.,Tsaftaris,S.,Arbel, T.: Counterfactual image synthesis for discovery of personalized predictive image markers. In: MICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Assisted Blomarkers’ Discovery. pp. 113–124. Springer (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    MIDL (2025) AURA: Agent for Understanding, Reasoning & Annotation 11

    Kumar, A., Kriz, A., Havaei, M., Arbel, T.: Prism: High-resolution & precise coun- terfactual medical image generation using language-guided stable diffusion. MIDL (2025) AURA: Agent for Understanding, Reasoning & Annotation 11

    2025

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

    Li, B., Yan, T., Pan, Y., Luo, J., Ji, R., Ding, J., Xu, Z., Liu, S., Dong, H., Lin, Z., et al.: Mmedagent: Learning to use medical tools with multi-modal agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., Wang, B.: Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency

    Mothilal, R.K., Sharma, A., Tan, C.: Explaining machine learning classifiers through diverse counterfactual explanations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. pp. 607–617 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.05199 (2020)

    Nemirovsky, D., Thiebaut, N., Xu, Y., Gupta, A.: Countergan: Generating re- alistic counterfactuals with residual generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.05199 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Pérez-García, F., Bond-Taylor, S., Sanchez, P.P., van Breugel, B., Castro, D.C., Sharma, H., Salvatelli, V., Wetscherek, M.T., Richardson, H., Lungren, M.P., et al.: Radedit: stress-testing biomedical vision models via diffusion image editing. In: European Conference on Comput...

    2025

  13. [21]

    https://github.com/ huggingface/smolagents (2025)

    Roucher, A., del Moral, A.V., Wolf, T., von Werra, L., Kaunismäki, E.: ‘smo- lagents‘: a smol library to build great agentic systems. https://github.com/ huggingface/smolagents (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    agentic ai: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenge

    Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K.I., Karkee, M.: Ai agents vs. agentic ai: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10468 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Research Paper, OpenAI (2023)

    Shavit, Y., Agarwal, S., Brundage, M., Adler, S., O’Keefe, C., Campbell, R., Lee, T., Mishkin, P., Eloundou, T., Hickey, A., et al.: Practices for governing agentic ai systems. Research Paper, OpenAI (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 (2023)

    Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., Anand- kumar, A.: Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    Wang, X., Chen, Y., Yuan, L., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Peng, H., Ji, H.: Executable code actions elicit better llm agents. In: Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02224 (2023)

    Yang, H., Yue, S., He, Y.: Auto-gpt for online decision making: Benchmarks and additional opinions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02224 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023)

    Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., Cao, Y.: React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhao, H., Shi, J., Qi, X., Wang, X., Jia, J.: Pyramid scene parsing network (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01105

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The Lancet 405(10477), 457 (2025)

    Zou, J., Topol, E.J.: The rise of agentic ai teammates in medicine. The Lancet 405(10477), 457 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.