Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Training pathology vision-language models on linked multi-magnification diagnostic paths yields stronger cross-scale reasoning and better single-image VQA.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 12:12 UTC pith:THWDV45R

load-bearing objection Solid pathology-VLM systems paper: real diagnostic-path benchmark and anti-shortcut curation, with a large in-distribution jump and only modest external transfer. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23794 v1 pith:THWDV45R submitted 2026-07-26 cs.CV cs.AI

PathScale-R1: Cross-scale Reasoning for Pathological Image Analysis

Chi Phan , Tianyi Zhang , Yufeng Wu , Qiaochu Xue , Jiajie Zhang , Linghan Cai , Zeyu Liu , Sudong Wang
show 2 more authors
Yueming Jin Dan Hu
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords pathology VQAcross-scale reasoningvision-language modelsdiagnostic pathsreinforcement learningshortcut-resistant benchmarksmulti-magnificationPathScale-R1
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.

Pathologists do not diagnose from one zoom level: they move from low-power tissue architecture to high-power cell detail and stitch those views into one conclusion. Most pathology vision-language models and benchmarks still treat each image in isolation, so they never practice that linking step, and many VQA tests can be gamed from wording alone. This paper builds PathScale-VQA from pathologist-verified diagnostic paths at 10×, 40×, and 200×, then hardens the questions against text-only and superficial visual shortcuts. It trains PathScale-R1 by distilling structured reasoning on hard cases and reinforcing answers that walk through every magnification in order. The result is large gains on cross-scale semantic tasks and measurable transfer to ordinary single-scale pathology VQA, while also showing that fine-grained visual matching across zooms remains weak for current models.

Core claim

The authors claim that treating a pathologist-verified multi-magnification diagnostic path as the unit of supervision, paired with shortcut-resistant VQA construction and a two-stage training recipe (difficulty-driven reasoning distillation plus reinforcement learning with a scale-aware reasoning structure reward), produces a pathology VLM that substantially outperforms strong general, medical, and pathology baselines on cross-scale semantic reasoning and transfers those gains to conventional single-scale pathology VQA.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic path—clinically corresponding 10×, 40×, and 200× regions from the same slide—plus the Scale-aware Reasoning Structure reward, which scores a response only when its analysis explicitly references every provided magnification in intended order before synthesizing an answer.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the idea that adversarial text-only screening and structure-controlled distractors make high scores reflect real use of cross-scale images rather than leftover language priors or reward-shaped answer format.

What would settle it

If strong models still score near full-image accuracy on PathScale-VQA semantic questions after all images are removed, or if removing the scale-order reward and difficulty filter erases the reported gains over the same backbone on the held-out cross-scale test set, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Pathology VLM training and evaluation should use multi-magnification trajectories, not only isolated patches or single-scale slide embeddings.
  • Shortcut-resistant curation (text-only adversaries plus controlled image distractors) becomes necessary for trustworthy pathology VQA scores.
  • Difficulty-filtered distilled rationales plus a scale-structure reward can lift a single-scale pathology backbone on multi-image diagnostic reasoning.
  • Cross-scale semantic supervision can improve ordinary single-image pathology VQA without extra single-scale-specific training.
  • Fine-grained cross-scale visual grounding remains a separate, underdeveloped capability even when semantic cross-scale accuracy is high.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Interactive whole-slide agents may need explicit zoom-trajectory objectives, not only better slide-level pooling.
  • The same generate-screen-revise loop against text-only solvers could harden VQA benchmarks outside pathology where linguistic leakage is common.
  • Joint training on semantic reasoning and visual grounding may be required before models can navigate slides the way pathologists do.
  • Residual text-only accuracy after image ablation suggests future benchmarks may need open-ended or coordinate-grounded answers, not only multiple choice.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces PathScale-VQA, a cross-scale pathology VQA benchmark of 10,373 MCQs grounded in 1,368 pathologist-verified "diagnostic paths" (10×/40×/200× ROI trajectories from 373 TCGA WSIs), constructed with adversarial text-only screening for semantic questions and structure-controlled distractor sampling for image-option grounding questions. Building on the semantic subset, the authors train PathScale-R1 (Patho-R1-7B backbone) via difficulty-driven reasoning distillation (SFT on hard samples with normalized teacher CoT) followed by GRPO with an accuracy reward, a format reward, and a Scale-aware Reasoning Structure reward that binary-rewards referencing all images in scale order. Reported results: 83.32% overall on the semantic test set vs 64.13% (InternVL3.5-8B) and 50.21% (backbone); +1.3/+1.9 points transfer on PathMMU val/test; ablations for SFT, RL, and R_srsr; a progressive image-removal study (text-only accuracy 27.79%); and evaluation-only visual-grounding results showing all models perform poorly.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes two contributions of real value to the field: (1) PathScale-VQA, a 10,373-question cross-scale pathology benchmark built on 1,368 pathologist-verified diagnostic paths, with an unusually careful shortcut-resistance pipeline (adversarial text-only screening against two strong LLMs, structure-controlled distractors, patient-wise splits); and (2) evidence that difficulty-driven rationale distillation plus outcome-based RL yields large in-distribution gains and modest but consistent transfer to single-scale PathMMU. The progressive image-removal analysis (Table III) is a genuinely falsifiable check, and code is promised. The honest reporting of weak visual-grounding results across all models is also valuable. However, the magnitude of the headline claim is tightly coupled to the authors' own data distribution, and the transfer evidence is currently too thin (and statistically unquantified) to carry the general conclusion that cross-scale supervision improves pathology VLM reasoning.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Table I] The central claim ('multi-magnification supervision improves pathology VLM reasoning') rests on a 19.19-point gap measured entirely in-distribution: PathScale-R1 is SFT+RL-trained on D_sem, drawn from the same GPT-5.2-drafted, template-constrained generation pipeline as the 2,350-question test set (§III.C, §IV.A), while all baselines are evaluated zero-shot. The patient-wise WSI split prevents slide leakage but not question-style leakage (shared task templates, distractor habits, rewarded low-to-high reasoning format). The paper's own numbers quantify the risk: the +33.11-point in-distribution gain over the backbone collapses to +1.9 on PathMMU full test (Table II). At minimum the authors should (i) temper the SOTA framing, and (ii) add a controlled comparison in which a baseline (e.g., InternVL3.5-8B or Patho-R1) is fine-tuned on the same train split, isolating the contribution of the c
  2. [§IV.C, Table II] Connected to the above: no confidence intervals or run-to-run variance are reported anywhere. The PathMMU transfer gains over the backbone (+1.3% val, n=710; +1.9% test, n=8521; Table II) are at or below plausible noise for a single training run, yet §IV.C concludes that cross-scale supervision 'strengthens pathology understanding on conventional single-scale VQA'. Bootstrap CIs on accuracy and, ideally, variance across multiple RL seeds are needed for the transfer claim to be load-bearing; as written it may reflect seed luck.
  3. [§III.C.2, Eq. (3), Table IV] R_srsr (Eq. 3) is a binary reward for referencing images in the intended order. Since SFT already distills an ordered image-wise CoT template (§III.C.1), part of the RL-stage gain may be format compliance rather than improved cross-scale evidence use. Table IV actually mitigates this — RL without R_srsr already yields 80.97% and R_srsr adds only +2.35% — but the text (§IV.E) presents R_srsr's gains as evidence of 'more reliable evidence organization' without any check that ordered referencing correlates with correct visual grounding of the cited images (e.g., against the visual-grounding subset, or an analysis of hallucinated references). A small analysis here would substantiate the reward's claimed mechanism.
  4. [§IV.G, Fig. 6] The visual grounding subset (4,343 samples) is a stated contribution, yet its results appear only as a bar chart (Fig. 6A) with no numeric table, no per-task breakdown across the five grounding task types, and no variance. Given the finding that all models cluster in a 'low and narrow range', the per-task numbers (e.g., Origin Grounding vs Scale Anticipation) are exactly what readers need to assess where the capability gap lies. Please report these in tabular form with CIs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.D, Table III] Table III is a strength, but averaging the image-removal results across five models obscures the most relevant quantity: PathScale-R1's own text-only accuracy. If the trained model retains above-chance text-only accuracy, that would bear directly on the format-alignment concern in Major Comment 3. Please add per-model rows, at least for PathScale-R1 and its backbone.
  2. [§III.C.1, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1): the condition 'c_base(I,q,O) < τK' mixes a count with a threshold product; state explicitly that c_base is an integer count and τK the maximum allowed count. Values K=16, τ=0.25 are given in §IV.A but no sensitivity analysis justifies them; a brief note on how the hard-set size and downstream accuracy vary with τ would help.
  3. [§IV.A] Reward weights λ_acc=0.75, λ_srsr=0.20, λ_fmt=0.05 (§IV.A) are asserted without ablation. Given that R_srsr's marginal effect is small (Table IV), a sensitivity sweep over λ_srsr (or at least a statement) would clarify whether the weighting matters.
  4. [passim] Typos/typesetting: 'We proposePathScale-R1' (missing space, §I contributions); 'LLaV A' spacing in Table I/II and references; the abstract's code availability sentence says 'available at PathScale-R1' rather than the GitHub URL; Fig. 2 caption '(Fig. 2B)' vs '(Fig. 2(B))' inconsistency.
  5. [References] Citations to GPT-5.2 [32] (pointing to a GPT-5 system card), Qwen3.5-397B [37], and Gemini 3 Pro [33] (a 2023 Gemini 1 report) appear mismatched to the systems actually used. Please correct so the teacher, generator, and adversary models are precisely identified and reproducible.
  6. [§III.A] §III.A states three junior pathologists annotate independently with senior review, but no inter-annotator agreement or adjudication statistics are reported for path validation or the final VQA answer key. Even summary statistics (agreement rate, fraction of paths/questions rejected or revised) would strengthen the quality claims for the benchmark.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circular derivation; standard train/held-out-test ML setup with external PathMMU transfer, only a mild format-reward alignment with SFT-taught structure.

specific steps
  1. other [§III.C.2 Eq. (2)–(3); ablation Table IV]
    "We therefore introduce a Scale-aware Reasoning Structure Reward (R_srsr) to reinforce explicit image-wise analysis before cross-scale synthesis. ... R_srsr(o, I) = 1 if ϕ(o_ana) = S(I), 0 otherwise. This reward is assigned only when the generated reasoning accounts for all provided visual contexts in their intended scale order."

    Mild only: SFT already trains normalized image-wise CoT in scale order; R_srsr then gives a binary bonus exactly when the policy emits that same ordered image-reference skeleton. Part of the reported RL lift can therefore be rewarded format alignment with the SFT template rather than independently verified multi-scale evidence use. Not load-bearing circularity: primary metric remains answer accuracy against held-out labels, and +SFT and +RL without R_srsr already move AVG from 50.21 to 80.97.

full rationale

PathScale-R1’s central claims are empirical VLM results (83.32% on PathScale-VQA semantic test; transfer on PathMMU), not first-principles predictions. Training uses the semantic train split (difficulty-filtered hard subset + distilled CoT, then GRPO with accuracy/format/R_srsr); evaluation uses a patient-wise WSI-held-out test split plus an external single-scale benchmark (PathMMU). That is ordinary supervised/RL practice, not X-defined-as-Y. R_srsr (Eq. 3) binary-rewards ordered image-index mentions matching S(I)=(1..N)—the same low-to-high template SFT already installs—so a slice of the RL gain can be format compliance rather than deeper evidence use; ablations still show large accuracy lifts from SFT and from answer-level RL without R_srsr (50.21→71.36→80.97→83.32), and text-only/image-ablation checks are reported. Self-citation of the MICCAI preliminary [22] is an extension notice, not a uniqueness theorem forcing the result. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction; no external uniqueness is imported from the authors; no ansatz is smuggled in as a theorem. In-distribution vs transfer gap size is a generalization/validity concern, not circularity by construction. Score 1 only for the mild structure-reward/SFT template alignment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on domain choices about what counts as cross-scale clinical evidence, on LLM-based leakage screening as a proxy for shortcut resistance, on difficulty filtering and teacher distillation as the right supervision, and on hand-set RL reward weights—not on a parameter-free theory. Invented constructs are benchmark/task/reward definitions rather than physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • difficulty threshold τ = 0.25
    Controls which semantic items enter hard-set SFT (success rate < τK); directly shapes the training distribution.
  • attempt count K for solvability = 16
    Number of Patho-R1 samples used to estimate empirical hardness.
  • reward weights λ_acc, λ_srsr, λ_fmt = 0.75, 0.20, 0.05
    Hand-chosen mixture balancing answer correctness, ordered multi-image analysis, and tag format in GRPO.
  • SFT/RL optimization hyperparameters = as stated in §IV.A
    Learning rate 1e-4, 5 SFT epochs, 700 GRPO steps, 16 samples per prompt; affect final accuracy but are not derived.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption A pathologist-verified trajectory of clinically corresponding 10×, 40×, and 200× ROIs is an adequate atomic unit of cross-scale diagnostic supervision and evaluation.
    Introduced in §I and §III.A as the foundation replacing isolated ROIs; clinical literature is cited but the discrete triple and TCGA sampling are design choices.
  • ad hoc to paper If strong text-only LLMs cannot answer a revised MCQ, residual linguistic shortcut risk is sufficiently suppressed for visual-understanding claims.
    Adversarial Text-only Screening Loop in §III.B.1 uses Gemini 3 Pro and Qwen3-Max as adversaries; Table III still shows non-chance text-only accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Requiring generated analysis to reference all input images in intended scale order (R_srsr) encourages genuine cross-scale evidence integration rather than mere template echoing.
    Defined in Eq. (2)–(3), §III.C.2; ablation shows gains, but the reward is a deterministic structure match.
  • domain assumption Standard VLM fine-tuning and GRPO optimize toward clinically meaningful reasoning when rewards are answer- and structure-verifiable.
    Assumed throughout §III.C and experiments; common in R1-style training literature the paper builds on.
invented entities (3)
  • PathScale-VQA diagnostic path unit no independent evidence
    purpose: Serve as linked multi-magnification evidence anchor for both semantic and grounding VQA.
    Operational construct defined by expert annotation protocol on TCGA WSIs; not an external natural kind beyond clinical practice analogy.
  • Scale-aware Reasoning Structure Reward (R_srsr) no independent evidence
    purpose: Binary reward when analysis mentions all scales in order before synthesis.
    Paper-defined reward component; falsifiable only as an ablation knob inside this training setup.
  • Adversarial Text-only Screening + Structure-controlled Distractor Sampling pipeline no independent evidence
    purpose: Reduce text-only and superficial visual shortcuts in benchmark construction.
    Methodological invention of the paper; validated internally via image-ablation and design arguments.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 24695 in / 3696 out tokens · 64421 ms · 2026-07-30T12:12:35.091821+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Pathological diagnosis is inherently multi-scale, requiring the integration of global tissue architecture at low magnification with cellular morphology at higher magnification. However, existing pathology benchmarks and vision-language models (VLMs) are still largely developed under single-scale settings, limiting their ability to learn clinically meaningful multi-magnification reasoning. Moreover, naively constructed visual question answering (VQA) tasks may be susceptible to text-only or superficial visual shortcuts, leading to unreliable assessments of visual understanding. To address these limitations, we introduce a benchmark and training framework for shortcut-resistant cross-scale pathology reasoning. We design an Adversarial Text-only Screening strategy for semantic reasoning questions and a Structure-controlled Distractor Sampling strategy for visual grounding questions, encouraging models to rely on cross-scale visual evidence. Based on this pipeline, we construct PathScale-VQA, a high-quality cross-scale pathology VQA benchmark with 10,373 multiple-choice questions grounded in 1,368 diagnostic paths across multiple magnification levels. Building on the semantic reasoning set, PathScale-R1 is optimized through Difficulty-driven Reasoning Distillation supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning with a Scale-aware Reasoning Structure reward, which encourages the use of evidence across magnifications. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance of PathScale-R1 on cross-scale reasoning tasks and effective transfer to conventional single-scale pathology VQA. Our code is available at https://github.com/iMVR-PL/PathScale-R1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23794 by Chi Phan, Dan Hu, Jiajie Zhang, Linghan Cai, Qiaochu Xue, Sudong Wang, Tianyi Zhang, Yueming Jin, Yufeng Wu, Zeyu Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of Pathology VQA designs. (A) Single-scale VQA evaluates isolated local recognition. (B) Naively constructed cross-scale VQA can still be solved from textual cues alone, revealing text-only shortcut risks. (C) Our PathScale-VQA uses expert-verified diagnostic paths to construct shortcut-resistant semantic reasoning and visual grounding tasks that require cross-scale visual evidence. (mag: magnif… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the proposed cross-scale benchmark construction and model optimization framework. (A) Expert-verified diagnostic paths link clinically relevant 10×, 40×, and 200× ROIs from the same WSI, providing scale-specific captions and cross-scale evidence anchors. (B) From these paths, we construct cross-scale semantic reasoning and visual grounding tasks, with adversarial text-only screening to reduce l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dataset statistics and benchmark performance. (A) PathScale-VQA component statistics and organ distribution. (B) Task-wise performance of representative VLMs across single-scale and proposed cross-scale VQA benchmark. constraints accordingly, and re-evaluate the revised sample under the same setting. This iterative process turns semantic VQA construction from one-pass generation into leakage￾aware curation… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross-scale semantic reasoning VQA case study. PathScale-R1 integrates architectural, stromal, and cellular evidence across magnifications and reaches the correct diagnosis, whereas the baseline models infer unsupported features and produce incorrect predictions. <think> The image shows a well-organized glandular architecture with uniformity in the shape and arrangement of the glands. This suggests a regul… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Single-scale pathology VQA case study. PathScale-R1 identifies the key morphological evidence and selects the correct answer, whereas baseline models rely on coarse visual impressions and produce incorrect answers. identify spatial and morphological correspondence across di￾agnostic trajectories. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cross-scale visual grounding analysis. (A) Comparison of cross-scale semantic reasoning and visual grounding performance across models. PathScale-R1 achieves the strongest semantic reasoning performance and the highest grounding accuracy, while grounding performance remains limited across all evaluated models. (B) A representative case in which PathScale-R1 identifies the intermediate-magnification view by… 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 · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology,

    R. J. Chenet al., “Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology,”Nature medicine, pp. 850–862, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Cost-effective instruction learning for pathology vision and language analysis,

    K. Chenet al., “Cost-effective instruction learning for pathology vision and language analysis,”Nature Computational Science, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Quilt-llava: Visual instruction tuning by ex- tracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos,

    M. S. Seyfiogluet al., “Quilt-llava: Visual instruction tuning by ex- tracting localized narratives from open-source histopathology videos,” inCVPR, 2024, pp. 13 183–13 192

    2024

  4. [4]

    Patho-r1: A multimodal reinforcement learning-based pathology expert reasoner,

    W. Zhanget al., “Patho-r1: A multimodal reinforcement learning-based pathology expert reasoner,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11404, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Pathreasoner-r1: Instilling structured reasoning into pathology vision-language model via knowledge-guided policy opti- mization,

    S. Jianget al., “Pathreasoner-r1: Instilling structured reasoning into pathology vision-language model via knowledge-guided policy opti- mization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21617, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Pathlens: A lightweight multimodal reasoner for in-depth pathology insights,

    Z. Zhuet al., “Pathlens: A lightweight multimodal reasoner for in-depth pathology insights,”Knowledge-Based Systems, p. 116261, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    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,” inCVPR, 2025, pp. 5134–5143

    2025

  8. [8]

    Wsi-llava: A multimodal large language model for whole slide image,

    Y . Lianget al., “Wsi-llava: A multimodal large language model for whole slide image,” inICCV, 2025, pp. 22 718–22 727

    2025

  9. [9]

    Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the digital pathology association,

    E. Abelset al., “Computational pathology definitions, best practices, and recommendations for regulatory guidance: a white paper from the digital pathology association,”The Journal of pathology, 2019

    2019

  10. [10]

    Pathologist-level interpretable whole-slide cancer diagnosis with deep learning,

    Z. Zhanget al., “Pathologist-level interpretable whole-slide cancer diagnosis with deep learning,”Nature Machine Intelligence, 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Multi-scale domain-adversarial multiple-instance cnn for cancer subtype classification with unannotated histopathological images,

    N. Hashimotoet al., “Multi-scale domain-adversarial multiple-instance cnn for cancer subtype classification with unannotated histopathological images,” inCVPR, 2020, pp. 3852–3861

    2020

  12. [12]

    Time-lapsed, large-volume, high-resolution intrav- ital imaging for tissue-wide analysis of single cell dynamics,

    D. Entenberget al., “Time-lapsed, large-volume, high-resolution intrav- ital imaging for tissue-wide analysis of single cell dynamics,”Methods, vol. 128, pp. 65–77, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    A stepwise approach to fine needle aspiration cytology of lymph nodes,

    Y . Chonget al., “A stepwise approach to fine needle aspiration cytology of lymph nodes,”Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 196–207, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering,

    X. Heet al., “Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    Pathmmu: A massive multimodal expert- level benchmark for understanding and reasoning in pathology,

    Y . Sun, H. Wu, C. Zhuet al., “Pathmmu: A massive multimodal expert- level benchmark for understanding and reasoning in pathology,” in ECCV. Springer, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

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

    Y . Sun, H. Wu, C. Zhu, Y . Siet al., “Pathbench: Advancing the bench- mark of large multimodal models for pathology image understanding at patch and whole slide level,”IEEE TMI, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Wsi-vqa: Interpreting whole slide images by generative visual question answering,

    P. Chenet al., “Wsi-vqa: Interpreting whole slide images by generative visual question answering,” inECCV. Springer, 2025, pp. 401–417

    2025

  18. [18]

    Breaking the visual shortcuts in multimodal knowledge- based visual question answering,

    D. Leeet al., “Breaking the visual shortcuts in multimodal knowledge- based visual question answering,”preprint arXiv:2511.22843, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A negative case analysis of visual grounding methods for VQA,

    R. Shresthaet al., “A negative case analysis of visual grounding methods for VQA,” inACL, 2020, pp. 8172–8181

    2020

  20. [20]

    Don’t just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering,

    A. Agrawalet al., “Don’t just assume; look and answer: Overcoming priors for visual question answering,” inCVPR, 2018, pp. 4971–4980

    2018

  21. [21]

    Mirage: The illusion of visual understanding,

    M. Asadiet al., “Mirage: The illusion of visual understanding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21687, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Enhancing pathological vlms with cross-scale reason- ing,

    C. Phanet al., “Enhancing pathological vlms with cross-scale reason- ing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17412, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liuet al., “Visual instruction tuning,” inNeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Qwen2. 5-vl technical report,

    S. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liuet al., “Qwen2. 5-vl technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Qwen3-vl technical report,

    “Qwen3-vl technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Internvl3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency,

    W. Wanget al., “Internvl3.5: Advancing open-source multimodal models in versatility, reasoning, and efficiency,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18265, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

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

    C. Liet al., “Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day,”NeurIPS, vol. 36, pp. 28 541–28 564, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Lingshu: A generalist foundation model for uni- fied multimodal medical understanding and reasoning,

    W. Xuet al., “Lingshu: A generalist foundation model for uni- fied multimodal medical understanding and reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07044, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Huatuogpt, towards taming language models to be a doctor,

    H. Zhanget al., “Huatuogpt, towards taming language models to be a doctor,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15075, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    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,” inAAAI, 2024

    2024

  31. [31]

    Tcgabiolinks: an r/bioconductor package for integrative analysis of tcga data,

    A. Colapricoet al., “Tcgabiolinks: an r/bioconductor package for integrative analysis of tcga data,”Nucleic acids research, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Openai gpt-5 system card,

    A. Singhet al., “Openai gpt-5 system card,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,

    Gemini Team, “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Qwen3-max: Just scale it,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen3-max: Just scale it,” September 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Limo: Less is more for reasoning,

    Y . Yeet al., “Limo: Less is more for reasoning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Lima: Less is more for alignment,

    C. Zhouet al., “Lima: Less is more for alignment,”NeurIPS, vol. 36, pp. 55 006–55 021, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents,” February

  38. [38]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,

    Z. Shaoet al., “Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Mimo-vl technical report,

    Xiaomi Team, “Mimo-vl technical report,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Qoq-med: Building multimodal clinical foundation models with domain-aware grpo training,

    D. Daiet al., “Qoq-med: Building multimodal clinical foundation models with domain-aware grpo training,”NeurIPS, vol. 38, pp. 37 406– 37 453, 2026

    2026

  41. [41]

    Medvlthinker: Simple baselines for multimodal med- ical reasoning,

    X. Huanget al., “Medvlthinker: Simple baselines for multimodal med- ical reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02669, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Octomed: Data recipes for state-of-the-art multi- modal medical reasoning,

    T. Ossowskiet al., “Octomed: Data recipes for state-of-the-art multi- modal medical reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.23269, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Healthgpt: A medical large vision-language model for unifying comprehension and generation via heterogeneous knowledge adaptation,

    T. Linet al., “Healthgpt: A medical large vision-language model for unifying comprehension and generation via heterogeneous knowledge adaptation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [2026]

    Available: https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    [Online]. Available: https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5