Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Pathology vision-language models can interpret supplied evidence but fail to find it in whole-slide images.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

PathAgentBench shows current pathology vision-language models can integrate supplied multi-scale findings but largely fail at acquiring diagnostic evidence directly from whole-slide images.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful benchmark with a real finding, but the Mode B headline hit-rate numbers are half protocol artifact; still worth engaging seriously. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19261 v2 pith:VN6UJU6T submitted 2026-07-21 cs.CV cs.AI

PathAgentBench: Benchmarking Evidence-Seeking Vision-Language Models on Whole-Slide Pathology Image

Dankai Liao , Tianyi Zhang , Yufeng Wu , Xinyue Zhang , Qiaochu Xue , Zeyu Liu , Dachun Zhao , Linghan Cai
show 1 more author
Yueming Jin
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords whole-slide imagespathology vision-language modelsevidence seekingdiagnostic treebenchmarkregion localizationmulti-scale reasoningagentic exploration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that whole-slide pathology diagnosis is an evidence-seeking process—deciding where to look, zooming in, and integrating findings—and that current vision-language models are strong at the final reasoning step but weak at the earlier searching steps. To make this measurable, it builds a diagnostic-tree benchmark with 1,822 slides and 17,135 pathologist-authored diagnostic paths, scored across four tasks: image-to-text matching, text-to-image retrieval, region localization, and multi-scale reasoning. Results show leading open-weight models exceed 93% accuracy on multi-scale reasoning and over 50% on matching tasks, but the best text-guided localization reaches below 0.09 mean IoU—worse than a simple center-based heuristic—and autonomous exploration loses coverage from 52% at low magnification to 2% at high magnification. The paper concludes that evidence acquisition, not evidence interpretation or integration, is the primary bottleneck holding pathology agents back from end-to-end use. This matters because current patch- and slide-level benchmarks, which supply evidence to the model, overstate how ready these systems are for real slides.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a capability asymmetry: once multi-scale findings are supplied, models integrate them into a diagnosis almost as well as pathologists, but when asked to localize or autonomously acquire the same evidence from a gigapixel slide, every evaluated model collapses. In text-guided localization, the best mean intersection-over-union is below 0.09, underperforming a parameter-free parent-box center baseline; in autonomous exploration, unconditional tumor hit rate falls from 0.522 at 2.5× to 0.185 at 10× to 0.020 at 40× under a fixed retention schedule. The paper therefore claims that current pathology VLMs are useful as scorers of given tiles, not a

What carries the argument

The diagnostic tree: each whole-slide image is a tree whose root is the slide thumbnail and whose nodes are regions at 2.5×, 10×, and 40× magnifications linked by pathologist-annotated parent-child relations; a root-to-leaf path is one diagnostic route. The benchmark formalizes diagnosis as marginalizing over latent search paths, separating the evidence-reasoning term from the evidence-acquisition term. Four tasks operationalize this decomposition: image-to-text matching, text-to-image retrieval, diagnostic-region localization (text-guided and autonomous-exploration modes), and multi-scale diagnostic reasoning. The two localization modes isolate complementary failure modes—planning and tool

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that pathologist-authored diagnostic trees and a single annotated tumor polygon are the unique ground truth for diagnostically relevant evidence; a tile counts as positive only when more than 5% of its area overlaps that one polygon, and the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement.

What would settle it

Re-run the autonomous exploration with an oracle-guided backtracking policy that re-opens pruned branches at high magnification; if unconditional 40× hit rate remains below roughly ten percent, the bottleneck is perceptual or score quality, whereas a jump above thirty percent would show that the reported gap is recoverable search rather than intrinsic acquisition failure.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Slide-level leaderboards that supply evidence to the model overstate end-to-end readiness; reasoning accuracy alone does not imply the ability to find the regions.
  • Agent design should prioritize backtracking and error recovery, since greedy hierarchical pruning is irrevocable and early mistakes foreclose whole subtrees.
  • Reliable confidence ranking is a structural prerequisite for top-K tile retention; near-uniform scores cannot support pruning decisions.
  • Hybrid verification, pairing a VLM navigator with classical tissue classifiers or task-specific detectors, could veto wrong child selections without requiring the VLM to solve planning alone.
  • Efficient, privacy-preserving deployment must be part of the agenda, since iterative acquisition dominates latency and cost and repeatedly transmits slide tiles to external services.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The text-to-image retrieval advantage over image-to-text matching points to hypothesis-driven search as a natural agent loop: a model that verifies better than it describes should generate differential hypotheses and retrieve evidence to test them, rather than scan without a hypothesis.
  • Because the diagnostic-tree ground truth comes from a single annotator per slide with review, the measured acquisition gap may be partly annotation-dependent; collecting inter-annotator agreement on diagnostic paths would separate model failure from legitimate variation in pathologist search behavior.
  • The paper's own budget sweep shows that adding branching recovers recall without yielding precise localization; a natural extension is an oracle-bounded study that measures how much of the high-magnification coverage loss is reachable even with perfect tile scoring.
  • The four-task decomposition could transfer to other gigapixel-imaging domains—such as radiology or satellite and document imaging—where the bottleneck is also deciding where to look across scales, not just interpreting what is shown.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. PathAgentBench is a new benchmark for whole-slide pathology image analysis that decomposes 'evidence seeking' into four tasks: T1 image-to-text matching, T2 text-to-image retrieval, T3 diagnostic-region localization (Mode A: text-guided; Mode B: autonomous whole-slide exploration), and T4 multi-scale diagnostic reasoning. The data are 1,822 TCGA WSIs with 17,135 pathologist-authored diagnostic paths and a private 190-slide breast cohort with annotated tumor polygons. The authors evaluate 20 VLMs (general-purpose, medical, pathology-specialized) plus non-VLM baselines. Their main empirical claim is that current VLMs are strong at interpreting and integrating supplied evidence (T4 > 93% for leading models, T1/T2 around 50–68%) but fail at acquiring evidence directly from WSIs (Mode A mIoU < 0.09; Mode B unconditional hit rate falls from 52.2% to 2.02% across 2.5×/10×/40×). They conclude that evidence acquisition, not reasoning, is the primary bottleneck for pathology agents.

Significance. The resource contribution is substantial: 17,135 annotated diagnostic paths, 51,363 node findings, four complementary tasks, an expert human reference, and evaluations across 20 model configurations with several ablations (distractor encoders, budget sweeps, oracle baseline, per-organ breakdown). The task decomposition is a genuine advance over patch-only or slide-level benchmarks because it makes the acquisition-versus-reasoning distinction measurable. The central finding, if supported, would have clear impact on how pathology-VLM progress is reported. However, as detailed below, the protocol-level controls—especially the oracle row in Table IV and the absence of annotation-uncertainty analysis—currently leave the size and even the direction of the model-specific acquisition failure less certain than the paper claims. The benchmark framework itself remains useful and likely citable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-G, Table IV] The oracle row in Table IV is the key control, and it undercuts the headline interpretation. Under the default (6,3,2) schedule, a ground-truth oracle gets 67.11/24.68/3.01 unconditional hit rate at 2.5/10/40×, whereas Gemini gets 54.82/19.89/2.24 and Qwen 51.75/18.46/2.06. Thus even perfect per-tile tumor classification cannot recover from the fixed hierarchical pruning: high-magnification recall is capped near 3%. The reported 52.2%→2.02% decay therefore reflects the search protocol as much as VLM capability, and Finding 3's 'evidence acquisition remains the primary bottleneck' conflates protocol with model. Please report a normalized metric (VLM unconditional hit rate divided by oracle hit rate under the same schedule, or conditional recall among tiles actually scored) and discuss where the model-specific loss is concentrated. Without this, the paper overstates the model deficiency.
  2. [§III-D3] Mode B's tile-level ground truth is defined by more than 5% area overlap with a single clinically annotated tumor polygon. No inter-annotator agreement is reported for these polygons. If the polygon under-segments or over-segments the tumor, or if diagnostically relevant tumor foci occupy less than 5% of a tile, the VLM's valid acquisitions are scored as misses. Since Mode B is the main evidence for the acquisition gap (Mode A is run on only four models), this labeling uncertainty is load-bearing. Report inter-annotator agreement on a subset of the private cohort and a sensitivity analysis of the 5% threshold (e.g., 0, 1, 5, and 10%).
  3. [§III-D3, Table III] Mode A is evaluated on only three VLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Flash, Qwen-3.5-Flash) plus Patho-R1-7B; other open-weight models were excluded for failing to emit valid bounding-box tool calls. With 150 queries per model on a 50-slide subset, the claim that current VLMs are poor at text-guided localization is based on a self-selected, tool-capable subset. The comparison to non-VLM heuristics is informative, but the paper should explicitly restrict its conclusion to 'tool-capable models evaluated' or add more tool-capable checkpoints; otherwise the breadth of the 'all models' claim (Abstract, Finding 3) exceeds the evidence.
  4. [§III-C] The TCGA diagnostic trees are single-path annotations: one annotator selects root-to-leaf paths, and a supervisor reviews. No quantitative inter-annotator agreement is reported. In Tasks 1–4 and Mode A, any model-selected region or finding that does not match the annotated path is counted as a miss. If pathologists differ in their chosen diagnostic routes, the benchmark may undercount valid evidence acquisition and overstate the acquisition gap. At minimum, report path-level agreement among annotators on a subset (e.g., kappa on selected regions, or agreement on findings) and discuss whether the single-path supervision affects the headline numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Author block] The author block and abstract contain spacing artifacts ('Y ufeng Wu', 'Y ueming Jin'); please fix.
  2. [Fig. 5 / Fig. 6] Fig. 5 legend ('Qwen3.5-Flash35B/3B activate') and Fig. 6 caption ('Scale EncodingSelected at 2.5x') appear garbled in the compiled PDF; check typography.
  3. [§IV-D] The T4 claim that open-weight ≤26B models beat closed-source VLMs should be scoped as 'in the text-only, supplied-evidence MCQ setting'; otherwise it could be misread as end-to-end superiority.
  4. [Table I] Ensure the '—' entries are consistent with the stated 20-model evaluation. For example, Mode B is described as '15 successfully evaluated models,' but the table lists more model rows; clarify the inclusion criterion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: PathAgentBench is an empirical benchmark; its central claims are measurements, not derivations from fitted parameters.

full rationale

PathAgentBench is a benchmark paper, not a derivation chain. The central claims — that models interpret and integrate supplied evidence well but fail at evidence acquisition — are empirical measurements on pathologist-annotated data. No quantity is fitted and then reported as a prediction. The diagnostic-tree formulation in Eq. (1)–(2) is a decomposition for evaluation design, not a source of predicted results. Task 1/2/4 accuracies are direct comparisons against pathologist-authored annotations. Task 3 Mode A reports IoU against annotated boxes, and Mode B reports hit rates against tumor polygons. The distractor-mining procedure using MiniLM is an ablation-controlled construction choice: the paper explicitly shows that encoder choice preserves model ordering (Spearman ρ = 0.95–0.99, Table II), so the main ranking is not an artifact of the distractor encoder. The Mode B oracle in Table IV is a baseline, not a fitted parameter, and its similar coverage decay is reported transparently as a property of the hierarchical pipeline. Self-citations are not load-bearing: related-work references to PathAgent and other agents are contextual, and no uniqueness theorem or derivation from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the benchmark conclusions. The paper also explicitly acknowledges limitations (e.g., breast-only Mode B, MiniLM distractor concern, fixed budgets), but these are validity caveats, not circularity. Therefore, no circular step can be identified by the standards of this review.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical, so the ledger mostly records hand-set evaluation constants and domain assumptions that define ground truth. No free parameters are fitted to make a prediction, and no new physical or architectural entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Distractor similarity threshold = 0.6 cosine similarity (all-MiniLM-L6-v2)
    Used in Tasks 1, 2, and 4 to reject too-similar distractor sets and is chosen by hand. It affects absolute task difficulty, though the encoder ablation suggests rank stability.
  • Mode A exploration budget = (10,7,5) ROIs at 2.5x/10x/40x
    Hand-chosen budget for text-guided localization. Table III shows mIoU is budget-sensitive and non-monotonic, so the reported localization numbers depend on this choice.
  • Mode B retention schedule K = (6,3,2) at 2.5x/10x/40x
    Hand-chosen branching schedule for autonomous exploration. Table IV shows 40x coverage strongly depends on K, so the headline 2.02% unconditional hit rate is schedule-dependent.
  • Mode B tumor-positive overlap threshold = >5% area overlap with annotated tumor region
    Defines which tiles count as positive when computing hit rates. This threshold is chosen by hand and directly determines recall levels.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Pathologist-authored boxes, findings, and diagnoses are the unique ground truth for diagnostic relevance.
    Section III-C: one annotator selects 'critical root-to-leaf paths' and a supervising pathologist reviews them. No inter-rater reliability is reported, and any model deviation from these paths is scored as a miss.
  • domain assumption WSI diagnosis decomposes into a diagnostic tree over magnifications {2.5x, 10x, 40x} with unique parent links.
    Section III-A, Eq. (1): the benchmark assumes a fixed hierarchy of magnifications and that path-based traversal is the right formalization of evidence seeking.
  • standard math Evidence reasoning and acquisition factor as p(y|s)=sum over paths p(y|path,s)p(path|s).
    Section III-A, Eq. (2): a standard marginalization, but it assumes the path variable is a sufficient latent variable for slide-level diagnosis.
  • ad hoc to paper A tile with more than 5% overlap with the annotated tumor region is diagnostically positive.
    Section III-D3, Mode B: this threshold is chosen by hand and determines the hit-rate ground truth.
  • ad hoc to paper Low cosine similarity under all-MiniLM-L6-v2 selects useful distractors.
    Section III-D1/D2/D4: the distractor mining procedure assumes semantic embedding distance is a good proxy for distractor difficulty. The encoder ablation checks ranking stability but not absolute difficulty.
  • domain assumption TCGA organ and diagnostic labels are correct inputs from the source dataset.
    Section III-B: the benchmark inherits TCGA labels without independent verification.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PathAgentBench: Benchmarking Evidence-Seeking Vision-Language Models on Whole-Slide Pathology Image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VN6UJU6T

@misc{pith2026260719261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PathAgentBench: Benchmarking Evidence-Seeking Vision-Language Models on Whole-Slide Pathology Image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VN6UJU6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19261}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Whole-slide image (WSI) diagnosis requires identifying diagnostically relevant regions, examining them across magnifications, and integrating multi-scale evidence. However, most existing pathology benchmarks evaluate models on pre-cropped patches or pre-extracted slide features, leaving their ability to acquire evidence directly from gigapixel WSIs largely untested. We introduce PathAgentBench, a benchmark for evaluating evidence-seeking vision-language models (VLMs) across four complementary capabilities: image-to-text matching for evidence interpretation, text-to-image retrieval for evidence verification, diagnostic-region localization for evidence acquisition, and multi-scale reasoning for evidence integration. The benchmark is organized as a diagnostic tree that links nested regions across magnifications with scale-specific findings and path-level diagnoses. It contains 1,822 TCGA WSIs and 17,135 diagnostic paths annotated by ten board-certified pathologists. An additional private cohort of 190 breast cancer WSIs with detailed annotations is used to evaluate autonomous whole-slide exploration. We evaluate 20 general-purpose, medical, and pathology-specialized models. Leading open-weight models achieve over 93% accuracy in multi-scale reasoning and over 50% accuracy in both cross-modal matching tasks. In contrast, diagnostic-region localization remains challenging: the best text-guided mean intersection-over-union is below 0.09, underperforming a simple center-based heuristic. During autonomous exploration, the unconditional hit rate decreases from 0.522 at low magnification to 0.185 at intermediate magnification and 0.020 at high magnification. These results reveal a pronounced gap between reasoning over curated evidence and acquiring that evidence directly from WSIs. PathAgentBench provides a unified framework for measuring and improving evidence-seeking pathology models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19261 by Dachun Zhao, Dankai Liao, Linghan Cai, Qiaochu Xue, Tianyi Zhang, Xinyue Zhang, Yueming Jin, Yufeng Wu, Zeyu Liu.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The second is a private 190-WSI breast-cancer cohort [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Decoding the Visual Attention of Pathologists to Reveal Their Level of Expertise,

    S. Chakrabortyet al., “Decoding the Visual Attention of Pathologists to Reveal Their Level of Expertise,” Oct. 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    A multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology,

    M. Y . Luet al., “A multimodal generative AI copilot for human pathology,” Nature, vol. 634, no. 8033, pp. 466–473, Oct. 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    PathAgent: Toward Interpretable Analysis of Whole-slide Pathology Images via Large Language Model-based Agentic Reasoning,

    J. Chenet al., “PathAgent: Toward Interpretable Analysis of Whole-slide Pathology Images via Large Language Model-based Agentic Reasoning,” Nov. 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    PathMMU: A Massive Multimodal Expert-Level Bench- mark for Understanding and Reasoning in Pathology,

    Y . Sunet al., “PathMMU: A Massive Multimodal Expert-Level Bench- mark for Understanding and Reasoning in Pathology,” Oct. 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    WSI-LLaV A: A multimodal large language model for whole slide image,

    Y . Lianget al., “WSI-LLaV A: A multimodal large language model for whole slide image,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Oct. 2025, pp. 22 718–22 727

    2025

  6. [6]

    The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project,

    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Networket al., “The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer analysis project,”Nature Genetics, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1113–1120, Oct. 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2,

    OpenAI, “Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2,” OpenAI, System Card, Dec. 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Gemini 3 Flash: Model Card,

    Google DeepMind, “Gemini 3 Flash: Model Card,” Google DeepMind, Model Card, Dec. 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Grok 4 Model Card,

    xAI, “Grok 4 Model Card,” xAI, Model Card, Aug. 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling,

    Z. Chenet al., “Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling,” Sep. 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Qwen3.5: Towards Native Multimodal Agents,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen3.5: Towards Native Multimodal Agents,” https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5, Feb. 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Under- standing, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond,

    J. Baiet al., “Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Under- standing, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond,” Oct. 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence,

    Kimi Teamet al., “Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence,” Feb. 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models,

    A. Grattafioriet al., “The Llama 3 Herd of Models,” Nov. 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone,

    M. Abdinet al., “Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone,” Aug. 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Improved baselines with visual instruc- tion tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruc- tion tuning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306

    2024

  17. [17]

    LLaV A-NeXT: Stronger llms supercharge multimodal capa- bilities in the wild,

    B. Liet al., “LLaV A-NeXT: Stronger llms supercharge multimodal capa- bilities in the wild,” May 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    MedGemma Technical Report,

    A. Sellergrenet al., “MedGemma Technical Report,” Apr. 2026

    2026

  19. [19]

    Lingshu: A Generalist Foundation Model for Unified Multimodal Medical Understanding and Reasoning,

    LASA Teamet al., “Lingshu: A Generalist Foundation Model for Unified Multimodal Medical Understanding and Reasoning,” 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    PathAsst: A Generative Foundation AI Assistant towards Artificial General Intelligence of Pathology,

    Y . Sunet al., “PathAsst: A Generative Foundation AI Assistant towards Artificial General Intelligence of Pathology,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 5034–5042, Mar. 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Quilt-LLaV A: Visual instruction tuning by extracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos,

    M. S. Seyfioglu, W. O. Ikezogwo, F. Ghezloo, R. Krishna, and L. Shapiro, “Quilt-LLaV A: Visual instruction tuning by extracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2024, pp. 13 183–13 192

    2024

  22. [22]

    LLaV A-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,

    C. Liet al., “LLaV A-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, Eds., vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, pp. 28 541–28 564

    2023

  23. [23]

    Patho-R1: A Multimodal Reinforcement Learning-Based Pathology Expert Reasoner,

    W. Zhanget al., “Patho-R1: A Multimodal Reinforcement Learning-Based Pathology Expert Reasoner,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, no. 33, pp. 28 418–28 426, Mar. 2026

    2026

  24. [24]

    SlideChat: A large vision-language assistant for whole- slide pathology image understanding,

    Y . Chenet al., “SlideChat: A large vision-language assistant for whole- slide pathology image understanding,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2025, pp. 5134–5143

    2025

  25. [25]

    PathReasoner-R1: Instilling Structured Reasoning into Pathology Vision-Language Model via Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization,

    S. Jiang, F. Liu, Z. Wang, L. Cai, and Y . Zhang, “PathReasoner-R1: Instilling Structured Reasoning into Pathology Vision-Language Model via Knowledge-Guided Policy Optimization,” Jan. 2026

    2026

  26. [26]

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models,

    S. Yaoet al., “ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models,” Mar. 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,

    L. Wanget al., “A survey on large language model based autonomous agents,”Frontiers of Computer Science, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 186345, Mar. 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Interactive and ex- plainable region-guided radiology report generation,

    T. Tanida, P. M ¨uller, G. Kaissis, and D. Rueckert, “Interactive and ex- plainable region-guided radiology report generation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2023, pp. 7433–7442

    2023

  29. [29]

    CPathAgent: An Agent-based Foundation Model for Inter- pretable High-Resolution Pathology Image Analysis Mimicking Patholo- gists’ Diagnostic Logic,

    Y . SUNet al., “CPathAgent: An Agent-based Foundation Model for Inter- pretable High-Resolution Pathology Image Analysis Mimicking Patholo- gists’ Diagnostic Logic,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 38. Curran Associates, Inc., 2025, pp. 101 673–101 731

    2025

  30. [30]

    A co-evolving agentic AI system for medical imaging analysis,

    S. Liet al., “A co-evolving agentic AI system for medical imaging analysis,” Sep. 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    MMNavAgent: Multi-Magnification WSI Navigation Agent for Clinically Consistent Whole-Slide Analysis,

    Z. Xuet al., “MMNavAgent: Multi-Magnification WSI Navigation Agent for Clinically Consistent Whole-Slide Analysis,” Mar. 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    PathFound: An agentic multimodal model activating evidence-seeking pathological diagnosis,

    S. Huaet al., “PathFound: An agentic multimodal model activating evidence-seeking pathological diagnosis,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 113, p. 104200, Sep. 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Evidence-based diagnostic reasoning with multi- agent copilot for human pathology,

    L. L. Weishauptet al., “Evidence-based diagnostic reasoning with multi- agent copilot for human pathology,” Mar. 2026

    2026

  34. [34]

    A Versatile Pathology Co-pilot via Reasoning Enhanced Multimodal Large Language Model,

    Z. Xuet al., “A Versatile Pathology Co-pilot via Reasoning Enhanced Multimodal Large Language Model,” Aug. 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    PathVQA: 30000+ Questions for Medical Visual Question Answering,

    X. He, Y . Zhang, L. Mou, E. Xing, and P. Xie, “PathVQA: 30000+ Questions for Medical Visual Question Answering,” Mar. 2020

    2020

  36. [36]

    OmniPathoVQA: Benchmarking pathology vision– language models with Encyclopedia-scale knowledge,

    K. Chenet al., “OmniPathoVQA: Benchmarking pathology vision– language models with Encyclopedia-scale knowledge,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 113, p. 104196, Sep. 2026

    2026

  37. [37]

    WSI-VQA: Interpreting Whole Slide Images by Generative Visual Question Answering,

    P. Chen, C. Zhu, S. Zheng, H. Li, and L. Yang, “WSI-VQA: Interpreting Whole Slide Images by Generative Visual Question Answering,” Oct. 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Pathbench: Advancing the benchmark of large multimodal models for pathology image understanding at patch and whole slide level,

    Y . Sunet al., “Pathbench: Advancing the benchmark of large multimodal models for pathology image understanding at patch and whole slide level,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 4087–4097, Oct. 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    HealthAgentBench: A Unified Benchmark Suite of Realistic Agentic Healthcare Environments for Challenging Frontier AI Agents,

    Q. Liuet al., “HealthAgentBench: A Unified Benchmark Suite of Realistic Agentic Healthcare Environments for Challenging Frontier AI Agents,” Jun. 2026

    2026

  40. [40]

    Sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2,

    Sentence-Transformers, “Sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2,” 2021

    2021

  41. [41]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks,

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks,” inProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th In- ternational Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP), K. Inui, J. Jiang, V . Ng, and X. Wan, Eds. Hong Kong, China: Association for Com...

    2019

  42. [42]

    Llama 3.2 vision model card,

    Meta, “Llama 3.2 vision model card,” Sep. 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report,

    S. Baiet al., “Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report,” 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million- Token Context Intelligence,

    DeepSeek-AIet al., “DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million- Token Context Intelligence,” Apr. 2026

    2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.