Abstract
Medical vision-language model (VLM) post-training is commonly evaluated through answer accuracy. We examine how changes in accuracy and training objectives relate to image-conditioned decisions in a controlled Qwen2.5-VL-3B study on PMC-VQA. We compare supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) restricted to the language model, expanded multimodal adaptation scopes, standard answer-only Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and a counterfactual evidence objective. On 2,000 clean-test questions, language model LoRA SFT changes correct-image accuracy by +1.10 percentage points (95% paired bootstrap CI:-0.85 to +3.05), while visual-benefit events decrease by 2.40 points and image sensitivity decreases by 5.60 points. Paired records reveal 155 acquired and 203 lost visual-benefit events. Broader adaptation yields lower correct-image accuracy than language-model LoRA SFT. Standard GRPO produces mixed-reward groups and parameter updates, with an uncertain clean test accuracy change. A generation audit reveals that canonical option scores can follow a different token path from generated answers. With scores taken along the greedy generation path, the evidence target improves on the training set; its gains over standard GRPO remain inconsistent on validation data at matched training doses. Sample-level analyses trace how evidence scores, decision margins, and generated answers change during post-training. This empirical and measurement audit identifies gaps between optimization activity, target acquisition, and useful held-out visual behavior.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.31450
