Abstract
Multi-frame medical VQA appears to reward increasingly complex adaptation: controller-style inference, localization-aware reranking, static hard-negative mixing, and staged continuation all appear plausible from first principles. We test a simpler competing hypothesis on MedFrameQA: methods that remain tightly aligned with the benchmark's final answer objective should be the strongest \emph{robust} adaptation family once evaluation is controlled across fixed splits, matched budgets, repeated seeds, and calibration. We compare controller-based methods, scaffold evolution, static mixed supervision, continuation-heavy variants, and direct answer-only supervised fine-tuning (SFT). The strongest robust family is direct decoder-only answer SFT on MedGemma-1.5-4B. Empirically, this family yields substantial improvements in held-out report accuracy over frozen baselines while remaining remarkably stable across repeated seeds and matched controls, ensuring our claims reflect true family-level robustness rather than an isolated hyperparameter peak. Furthermore, post-hoc calibration effectively repairs confidence estimation without compromising accuracy, and the core approach transfers consistently to secondary backbones like Qwen2.5-VL-3B. The main result is therefore not that a complex auxiliary mechanism wins, but that objective-aligned direct answer SFT is the strongest robust adaptation family we found for MedFrameQA. By establishing this strong, minimalist baseline, we hope to redirect community focus toward fundamentally robust optimization rather than architectural complexity.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27566
