Large language model (LLM) agent failures often contain multiple related errors rather than a single mistake. Existing attribution methods usually identify a responsible agent, step, or root cause, but do not explicitly model dependency between errors. We introduce EDGE, an error dependency graph-guided framework for multi-error attribution in LLM agent traces. EDGE constructs an error dependency graph from observed error events and validates a reliable causal subset through counterfactual rollout. The inference graph guides a two-stage LLM-as-judge detector for error attribution, and the intervention-validated subgraph provides a more reliable basis for explanation and repair analysis. Experiments on TRAIL and MAST show that EDGE improves category-level multi-error attribution across most evaluated models and settings. Experiments with adapted Who&When-style prompts show that the graph helps across prompting strategies. These results suggest that dependency structure is a useful diagnostic prior for agent failures beyond isolated root-cause prediction.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have become increasingly powerful in multimodal learning by enabling modular specialization across modalities. However, their effectiveness remains unclear when additional modalities introduce more noise than complementary information. Existing approaches, such as the Partial Information Decomposition, struggle to scale beyond two modalities and lack the resolution needed for instance-level control. We propose Beyond Two-modality Weighting (BTW), a bi-level, non-parametric weighting framework that combines instance-level Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence and modality-level mutual information (MI) to dynamically adjust modality importance during training. Our method does not require additional parameters and can be applied to an arbitrary number of modalities. Specifically, BTW computes per-example KL weights by measuring the divergence between each unimodal and the current multimodal prediction, and modality-wide MI weights by estimating global alignment between unimodal and multimodal outputs. Extensive experiments on sentiment regression and clinical classification demonstrate that our method significantly improves regression performance and multiclass classification accuracy.

The application of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare holds significant promise for enhancing clinical decision-making, medical research, and patient care. However, their integration into real-world clinical settings raises critical concerns around trustworthiness, particularly around dimensions of truthfulness, privacy, safety, robustness, fairness, and explainability. These dimensions are essential for ensuring that LLMs generate reliable, unbiased, and ethically sound outputs. While researchers have recently begun developing benchmarks and evaluation frameworks to assess LLM trustworthiness, the trustworthiness of LLMs in healthcare remains underexplored, lacking a systematic review that provides a comprehensive understanding and future insights. This survey addresses that gap by providing a comprehensive review of current methodologies and solutions aimed at mitigating risks across key trust dimensions. We analyze how each dimension affects the reliability and ethical deployment of healthcare LLMs, synthesize ongoing research efforts and identify critical gaps in existing approaches. We also identify emerging challenges posed by evolving paradigms, such as multi-agent collaboration, multi-modal reasoning, and the development of small open-source medical models. Our goal is to guide future research toward more trustworthy, transparent, and clinically viable LLMs.