Interactive medical questioning is essential in clinical consultations, where physicians must actively gather necessary patient information. Yet existing medical Large Language Models (LLMs) predominantly follow a reactive paradigm, risking diagnostic errors by answering before seeking sufficient details. To bridge this gap, we propose ProMed, a reinforcement learning framework that transitions LLMs toward a proactive paradigm, enabling them to ask clinically valuable questions before decision-making. Central to ProMed is the Shapley Information Gain (SIG) reward, which quantifies a question’s clinical utility as the amount of newly acquired information, while considering its contextual importance via Shapley values. We integrate SIG into a two-stage training pipeline: (1) SIG-Guided Model Initialization uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to construct high-reward interaction trajectories for supervision, and (2) SIG-Augmented Policy Optimization, with a novel SIG-guided Reward Distribution Mechanism that prioritizes informative questions for fine-grained optimization. Experiments on partial-information medical benchmarks show that ProMed significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods by 6.29% on average and delivers a 54.45% gain over the reactive paradigm, and generalizes robustly to out-of-domain cases. Our codes are available at https://github.com/hxxding/ProMed.

The ability to accurately identify authorship is crucial for verifying content authenticity and mitigating misinformation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. However, their potential in authorship analysis remains under-explored. Traditional studies have depended on hand-crafted stylistic features, whereas state-of-the-art approaches leverage text embeddings from pre-trained language models. These methods, which typically require fine-tuning on labeled data, often suffer from performance degradation in cross-domain applications and provide limited explainability. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)? (3) Can LLMs provide explainability in authorship analysis, particularly through the role of linguistic features? Moreover, we investigate the integration of explicit linguistic features to guide LLMs in their reasoning processes. Our assessment demonstrates LLMs’ proficiency in both tasks without the need for domain-specific fine-tuning, providing explanations into their decision making via a detailed analysis of linguistic features. This establishes a new benchmark for future research on LLM-based authorship analysis.