Abstract
Multi-image medical VQA is not merely a prompt-length problem; it is a fundamental challenge of agentic decision-making. Medical vision-language agents must aggregate evidence across ordered images, remain robust to answer-order perturbations, and avoid overfitting to noisy search-time feedback. We study MedFrameQA through a controlled comparison of five inference-time agentic strategies, optimized using the same high-budget ShinkaEvolve configuration and evaluated on a reproducible internal frozen split (1,331 evolution, 665 holdout, 855 final test). Across five independent repeated runs, the strongest method emerges as the simplest robust aggregator: the \textbf{order-vote} policy achieves $57.89 \pm 0.65\%$ final-test accuracy, significantly outperforming the fixed baseline ($52.73 \pm 0.42\%$) and the more complex, albeit brittle, order-rerank variant ($55.79 \pm 0.43\%$). Paired bootstrap analysis confirms these significant gains. Extending the evolutionary search budget from 50 to 100 generations yields no generalization benefit: while holdout performance marginally increases, final-test accuracy drops from $57.89\%$ to $56.02\%$. Our findings suggest that for multi-image medical reasoning, defining the correct agentic decision rule is substantially more impactful than expanding the optimization search budget.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27564
