lingxidiagbench-multi-agent-framework-benchmarking

name

lingxidiagbench-multi-agent-framework-benchmarking

description

Build multi-agent benchmarking systems with role-separated agents (simulator, interviewer, evaluator) for structured multi-turn dialogue evaluation. Inspired by the LingxiDiagBench psychiatric consultation framework. Trigger phrases: 'build a multi-agent benchmark', 'create a doctor-patient simulation', 'evaluate LLMs on multi-turn dialogue', 'benchmark diagnostic reasoning', 'multi-agent consultation framework', 'simulate structured interviews with LLMs'

Multi-Agent Framework for Benchmarking LLMs on Structured Multi-Turn Dialogue

This skill teaches Claude to design and implement multi-agent benchmarking systems where specialized agents (simulator, interviewer, judge) interact in structured multi-turn dialogues to evaluate LLM capabilities. The core technique comes from LingxiDiagBench, which separates the patient simulation, clinical interviewing, and diagnostic evaluation into distinct agent roles -- each with constrained prompts and measurable outputs -- then compares static (pre-recorded dialogue) versus dynamic (live agent interaction) evaluation modes to surface gaps in information-gathering strategy.

When to Use

• When the user wants to benchmark LLMs on tasks requiring multi-turn information gathering (medical consultation, customer support triage, investigative interviews)
• When building a simulation harness where one LLM plays an information-holder (patient, customer, witness) and another plays an information-seeker (doctor, support agent, interviewer)
• When the user needs to evaluate whether an LLM can ask the right questions, not just answer them
• When designing an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline to score dialogue quality alongside task accuracy
• When comparing static evaluation (score LLMs on fixed dialogues) with dynamic evaluation (let LLMs conduct their own dialogues)
• When creating synthetic datasets of multi-turn conversations aligned to real-world demographic and categorical distributions

Key Technique

Role-Separated Multi-Agent Architecture. The framework decomposes evaluation into three distinct agent roles. The Simulator Agent holds ground-truth case information and responds to questions in character -- constrained to brief, naturalistic answers without volunteering unsolicited details. The Interviewer Agent conducts a structured multi-turn dialogue using one of several information-gathering strategies (free-form, decision-tree-guided, or RAG-enhanced phased protocols). The Evaluator Agent independently scores both the dialogue quality and the final task output (e.g., a diagnosis). This separation prevents information leakage and lets you measure each component independently.

Static vs. Dynamic Evaluation Modes. A key insight from the paper is that LLMs that perform well on pre-recorded dialogues (static evaluation) often perform worse when they must gather information themselves (dynamic evaluation). This gap reveals whether a model's reasoning ability is bottlenecked by poor questioning strategy. Implementing both modes in your benchmark exposes this distinction: static mode tests reasoning-from-evidence, while dynamic mode tests the full loop of question planning, evidence collection, and reasoning.

Phased Consultation with RAG Enhancement. The best-performing interviewer strategy follows a five-phase protocol: (1) Screening -- 3-5 broad questions about chief complaints and duration; (2) Assessment -- 5-8 questions on core symptoms and functional impact; (3) Deep-dive -- 3-6 targeted questions on specifics and underlying causes; (4) Risk Assessment -- 2-4 safety-critical checks; (5) Closure -- 1-2 confirmation questions. At each phase, a RAG component retrieves relevant diagnostic guidelines for the top-3 candidate categories, steering the interviewer toward discriminating questions. This phased approach improved end-to-end accuracy by ~5% over unstructured questioning.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Define the domain taxonomy. Enumerate the categories your benchmark must distinguish (e.g., 12 ICD-10 psychiatric categories, product issue types, legal case types). Specify the classification granularity levels -- binary, multi-class, and fine-grained -- since LLM performance degrades dramatically with category count (92% binary vs. 28% 12-way in the paper).

2. Design the case profile schema. Create a structured format for ground-truth cases that the Simulator Agent will embody. Include demographic fields, category labels, key information points, and response-style constraints. Example fields: age, gender, primary_category, secondary_category, key_facts[], emotional_tone, verbosity_level.

3. Build the Simulator Agent with behavioral constraints. Write a system prompt that instructs the LLM to role-play the case profile with strict rules: answer only what is asked, use colloquial language, express appropriate uncertainty when the case profile lacks specific details, and keep responses brief (calibrate token limits from real-world data distributions).

4. Implement Interviewer Agent strategies at multiple levels. Create at least three interviewer variants: (a) Free-form -- the LLM decides what to ask with no external guidance; (b) Structured -- follow a decision tree or checklist of topics; (c) RAG-enhanced phased -- follow a multi-phase protocol where each phase retrieves relevant reference material (guidelines, knowledge base entries) for the top candidate categories to inform the next set of questions.

5. Build the phased consultation controller. Implement a state machine or turn counter that tracks which phase the interviewer is in (Screening -> Assessment -> Deep-dive -> Risk -> Closure). At each phase transition, invoke the RAG retrieval to update the interviewer's context with relevant guidelines for the current top-3 candidate categories.

6. Create the Evaluator Agent with separate scoring dimensions. Design two independent evaluation pipelines: (a) Task accuracy -- compare the final classification output against ground truth using accuracy, macro-F1, and weighted-F1; (b) Dialogue quality -- use an LLM-as-a-Judge to score along 5-6 rubric dimensions (e.g., clinical appropriateness, thoroughness, ethical conduct, communication quality), each on a defined scale with anchor descriptions.

7. Implement static evaluation mode. Feed pre-recorded complete dialogues directly to the Evaluator Agent. This tests pure reasoning-from-evidence without the information-gathering step. Use a fixed test set (e.g., 1,000 cases) for reproducible comparison across models.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Building a multi-agent medical consultation benchmark

User: "I want to benchmark GPT-4 and Claude on psychiatric diagnosis using multi-turn patient interviews."

Approach:

1. Define the case schema with ICD-10 categories and patient profile fields
2. Create a Simulator Agent with a constrained patient prompt
3. Implement three Interviewer strategies (free-form, symptom-tree, RAG-phased)
4. Run both static and dynamic evaluations
5. Score with LLM-as-a-Judge on clinical quality dimensions

Output structure:

# Case profile schema
case_profile = {
    "case_id": "EMR-00421",
    "age": 34,
    "gender": "female",
    "primary_diagnosis": "F32",  # Depressive Episode
    "comorbidity": "F41",        # Anxiety Disorder
    "key_symptoms": ["insomnia", "low_mood", "concentration_difficulty", "appetite_loss"],
    "duration_months": 6,
    "severity": "moderate",
    "verbosity": "low"           # Brief, reluctant responses
}

# Simulator Agent system prompt
PATIENT_SYSTEM_PROMPT = """You are role-playing a psychiatric outpatient based on the following profile.
Rules:
- Answer ONLY what the doctor asks. Do not volunteer extra information.
- Keep responses under 50 tokens. Use everyday language.
- If the profile does not specify an answer, say you are unsure or do not remember.
- Do not use clinical terminology unless the doctor uses it first.
- Show emotional tone consistent with your condition but do not exaggerate.

Profile: {case_profile_json}
"""

# Interviewer Agent (RAG-phased strategy)
DOCTOR_SYSTEM_PROMPT = """You are a psychiatrist conducting an initial consultation.
Follow this five-phase protocol:
Phase 1 (Screening, 3-5 questions): Ask about chief complaints, onset, and duration.
Phase 2 (Assessment, 5-8 questions): Assess core symptoms and functional impairment.
Phase 3 (Deep-dive, 3-6 questions): Explore specific symptom details and triggers.
Phase 4 (Risk, 2-4 questions): Screen for self-harm and safety concerns.
Phase 5 (Closure, 1-2 questions): Confirm key findings and ask if anything was missed.

Retrieved guidelines for current top candidates:
{rag_retrieved_guidelines}

After the consultation, provide your differential diagnosis with ICD-10 codes.
"""

# Evaluator Agent rubric
JUDGE_RUBRIC = {
    : {: , : {
        : ,
        : ,
        : 
    }},
    : {: , : {...}},
    : {: , : {...}},
    : {: , : {...}},
    : {: , : {...}},
}

Example 2: Customer support triage benchmark (domain adaptation)

User: "Adapt this multi-agent framework to benchmark LLMs on customer support ticket resolution through multi-turn chat."

Approach:

1. Replace psychiatric categories with support ticket categories (billing, technical, account, shipping)
2. Replace patient profiles with customer profiles (issue type, history, sentiment)
3. Adapt the five-phase protocol to support workflows (greeting -> problem identification -> troubleshooting -> resolution -> satisfaction check)
4. Use RAG to retrieve relevant knowledge base articles instead of clinical guidelines

Output structure:

# Domain-adapted case profile
customer_profile = {
    "case_id": "TKT-8832",
    "customer_tier": "premium",
    "issue_category": "billing_dispute",
    "sub_category": "double_charge",
    "key_facts": ["charged twice on Feb 3", "amount: $49.99", "card ending 4421"],
    "sentiment": "frustrated",
    "verbosity": "medium",
    "red_herrings": ["mentions unrelated shipping delay"]
}

# Adapted phase protocol for support agent
SUPPORT_PHASES = {
    "greeting": {"turns": 1, "goal": "Establish rapport and ask for issue summary"},
    "identification": {"turns": "3-5", "goal": "Identify exact issue, account, and timeline"},
    "troubleshooting": {"turns": "3-6", "goal": "Verify details, check systems, gather evidence"},
    "resolution": {"turns": "1-3", "goal": "Propose and confirm resolution"},
    "closure": {"turns": 1, "goal": "Confirm satisfaction and offer further help"},
}

# Evaluation: task accuracy + dialogue quality
# Task accuracy: Did the agent correctly classify the issue and propose the right resolution?

Example 3: Comparing static vs. dynamic evaluation to find information-gathering gaps

User: "My LLM scores 85% on classifying support tickets from transcripts but seems worse in live chat. How do I measure this gap?"

Approach:

1. Run static evaluation: feed 500 pre-recorded chat transcripts to the LLM and measure classification accuracy
2. Run dynamic evaluation: let the same LLM conduct 500 live chats with a Simulator Agent, then classify
3. Compare the accuracy gap to quantify the information-gathering deficit
4. Analyze which question-asking strategies close the gap

Output:

Static Evaluation Results (n=500):
  Binary classification:  87.2% accuracy
  4-class classification: 61.4% accuracy
  8-class classification: 38.7% accuracy

Dynamic Evaluation Results (n=500):
  Binary classification:  79.8% accuracy  (gap: -7.4%)
  4-class classification: 48.2% accuracy  (gap: -13.2%)
  8-class classification: 27.1% accuracy  (gap: -11.6%)

Strategy Comparison (dynamic, 8-class):
  Free-form:    27.1% accuracy
  Checklist:    31.4% accuracy  (+4.3%)
  RAG-phased:   35.8% accuracy  (+8.7%)

Key Insight: The static-dynamic gap widens with category count,
confirming that information-gathering quality is the bottleneck,
not reasoning ability. RAG-phased strategy recovers ~75% of the gap.

Best Practices

• Do: Constrain the Simulator Agent's verbosity strictly. Real interviewees give terse, incomplete answers. Overly cooperative simulators inflate dynamic evaluation scores and hide information-gathering deficits.
• Do: Run both static and dynamic evaluation on the same test cases to produce a paired comparison. The gap between them is the most informative metric your benchmark produces.
• Do: Use multi-model consensus for LLM-as-a-Judge scoring (e.g., average scores from 3 different judge models) to reduce single-model bias in quality assessment.
• Do: Validate synthetic data distributions against real-world reference distributions using Jensen-Shannon divergence before running evaluations at scale.
• Avoid: Assuming high dialogue quality scores imply high task accuracy. The paper found only moderate correlation -- a model can ask well-structured questions and still reach wrong conclusions.
• Avoid: Testing only binary classification. Performance degrades dramatically with category count (92% -> 28% in the paper). Always include fine-grained multi-class tasks to reveal the true ceiling.

Error Handling

• Simulator produces out-of-character responses: Add a validation layer that checks each simulator response against the case profile for factual consistency. If the response mentions facts not in the profile, regenerate with a reminder prompt. Score this with an "accuracy" dimension (adherence to ground truth).
• Interviewer gets stuck in a loop: Implement a maximum turn limit per phase and a global turn limit. If the interviewer repeats the same question category, inject a phase-transition prompt or force-advance to the next phase.
• Judge scores are inconsistent across runs: Use temperature=0 for judge inference, provide detailed scoring anchors for each rubric point, and require the judge to output chain-of-thought reasoning before the numeric score. Average across multiple judge models.
• RAG retrieves irrelevant guidelines: Use a re-ranking step after initial retrieval. Filter retrieved documents by relevance score threshold. Limit context to top-3 candidate categories to avoid overwhelming the interviewer's context window.
• Distribution mismatch in synthetic data: Compute per-category and per-demographic KL divergence between synthetic and reference sets. Regenerate underrepresented categories with targeted sampling until divergence drops below threshold.

Limitations

• Dynamic evaluation is expensive. Each case requires a full multi-turn dialogue (15-25 LLM calls per case across simulator + interviewer + evaluator). Budget for 50-100x the cost of static evaluation per case.
• LLM-as-a-Judge has moderate inter-rater reliability. The paper shows dialogue quality scores correlate only moderately with task accuracy. Do not use judge scores as the sole evaluation metric -- always pair with ground-truth task accuracy.
• Simulator fidelity is bounded by prompt engineering. LLM-based simulators cannot perfectly replicate real human behavior (pauses, contradictions, emotional volatility). Benchmark results represent an upper bound on real-world dynamic performance.
• Language and domain specificity. LingxiDiagBench targets Chinese psychiatric consultation. Adapting to other languages or domains requires rebuilding case profiles, phase protocols, RAG knowledge bases, and judge rubrics from domain-specific data.
• Comorbidity and ambiguous cases are hard. Binary classification is a solved problem for current LLMs; the real challenge is multi-label and differential diagnosis. Design your benchmark to emphasize these hard cases.

Reference

• Paper: LingxiDiagBench: A Multi-Agent Framework for Benchmarking LLMs in Chinese Psychiatric Consultation and Diagnosis -- Read Section 3 for the three-agent architecture and five-phase consultation protocol, Section 4 for the static vs. dynamic evaluation comparison, and Table 7 for the strategy ablation results.
• Code & Data: github.com/Lingxi-mental-health/LingxiDiagBench -- See src/doctor/ for interviewer agent implementations, src/patient/ for simulator agents, and evaluation/ for the judge pipeline.