arXiv:2604. 14888v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear.
By Danae S\'anchez Villegas, Samuel Lewis-Lim, Nikolaos Aletras, Desmond Elliott
arXiv:2607. 16303v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical Vision-Language Models (Med-VLMs) require reliable reasoning from fine-grained visual evidence, yet existing models can produce plausible clinical answers by relying on language priors or medical templates rather than truly attending to diagnosis-critical regions.
By Yunhang Qian, Jiaquan Yu, Jiawei Liu, Meng Wang, Hongwei Bran Li, Xiaobin Hu
The paper introduces MedTraj, a framework that constructs, evaluates, and optimizes multi‑step reasoning trajectories for medical AI agents. It parses each trajectory into observations, evidence, numbered steps, and a conclusion, scoring them on coherence, evidence support, hallucination, completeness, and traceability. Experiments on CareQA, PubMedQA, and CECMed show that incorporating quality‑weighted trajectory context improves reasoning coherence and correctness while significantly reducing hallucinations.
By Yunqi Zhu, Wensheng Zhang, Xuebing Yang
arXiv:2608.28623v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are getting increasingly capable, primarily through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before a...
By Mahir Numayeer Islam, Gakuto Okuyama, Nikolaus Siauw, Shivank Garg, Madhur Panwar, Vasu Sharma
arXiv:2608.28623v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are increasingly capable, largely through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before ans...
By Mahir Numayeer Islam, Gakuto Okuyama, Nikolaus Siauw, Shivank Garg, Madhur Panwar, Vasu Sharma
The paper investigates how misleading context—specifically fabricated evidence and bare assertions—affects large language models’ medical question‑answering performance. Experiments on MedMisBench show that models are more prone to adopt answers based on assertions than fabricated evidence, and that these misleading cues are often disclosed in reasoning traces but rarely in final responses. A monitor that reads open reasoning traces can detect most corrupted decisions, whereas monitoring only responses is less effective.
By Robin Linzmayer, No\'emie Elhadad