arXiv:2609. 31450v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language model (VLM) post-training is commonly evaluated through answer accuracy.
arXiv:2609.06419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language models (VLMs) require confidence that reflects both answer correctness and patient-specific visual evidence. Recent GRPO-base...
The paper introduces EASE, a method that enhances multimodal reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) by adding visual‑evidence process supervision. EASE transforms annotated evidence regions into smoothed visual‑token targets and uses them to guide attention during RL training, but only on high‑reward trajectories. Experiments on Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B, Qwen3‑VL‑4B, and Qwen3‑VL‑8B show that EASE improves average scores over DAPO by 2.5 to 3.1 points across perception, hallucination, visual math, and multimodal reasoning benchmarks, and diagnostics confirm better alignment of visual attention with annotated evidence.
arXiv:2609.09184v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language model (VLM) confidence may change in aggregate when visual evidence is degraded while remaining structurally inconsistent within indivi...
The paper introduces a free, label‑free visual evidence signal that improves fine‑grained vision‑language reasoning. By selecting image crops that maximize the model’s answer distribution peak, the method locates answer‑bearing regions without training or annotations, boosting accuracy from 70 % to 85 %. The evidence gap also complements model confidence, enabling better correctness prediction and error flagging.
VisionQ is a new benchmark for qualitative analysis in computer vision that evaluates vision‑language models (VLMs) on criterion‑conditioned visual discrimination. It is built from over 1,800 peer‑reviewed comparison figures in CVPR and ICCV papers, linking each image crop to author‑stated visual claims through 3,911 hand‑annotated data points. The benchmark includes a 51‑leaf taxonomy of visual criteria, a protocol that hides method identities and reports accuracy per criterion, and a DPO‑tuned Gemma‑4‑E4B judge that improves accuracy on a held‑out test set.
arXiv:2606. 20244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often underperform on evidence intensive tasks because decisive visual evidence are small, localized, and easy to overlook, leading to failures in evidence readout even when high-level reasoning is intact.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) drives multimodal reasoning, but answer-level correctness does not guarantee that a vision-language model grounds its predictions in visual evidence. Existing visual-intervention methods contrast policy behavior on original and modified images, yet assign supervision by the type of intervention rather than its observed effect.
arXiv:2607. 27069v2 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Closed yes/no spatial benchmarks can reward a correct answer even when the image adds little support beyond no-image contexts.
arXiv:2609.14284v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. Th...
arXiv:2609.36572v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has been extended to Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), and perception-aware methods further e...
HALDETECT is a system developed for the English hallucination-detection track of ImageEval 2026, where the task is to identify the single visually grounded statement among three culturally plausible options. The approach treats the problem as a contrastive decision, outputs the answer before an explanation, and bases reasoning on colour/texture, shape/form, and context. The best model fine‑tunes Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B‑Instruct with 4‑bit QLoRA, freezes the vision encoder, and achieves a Contrastive Instability score of 0.035 on the test set, placing third among eight teams.
The paper introduces MedQA-MM, a benchmark that exposes shortcut reasoning in medical multimodal multiple-choice questions. By auditing prompts, images, and modalities, the authors show that models often rely on textual cues rather than visual evidence, with full-input accuracy at 62.63% but only 5.21% when restricted to text. The study highlights the need for route-level evidence to validate true medical image reasoning.