Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have substantially advanced Radiology Report Generation (RRG), yet aligning them through reinforcement learning (RL) remains challenging due to heterogeneous medical supervision. Vanilla Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) assigns uniform credit across the entire generation, leading to segment interference, token dilution, and rationale-diagnosis decoupling, which exacerbates clinical hallucinations. We propose HERO (Hierarchical rationalE Reasoning Optimization), a factorized policy optimization framework that aligns heterogeneous supervision with three optimization granularities. HERO separately optimizes reasoning, diagnosis, and rationale faithfulness through complementary segment-, token-, and completion-level optimization with a heterogeneous reward formulation covering diagnostic accuracy, reasoning quality, and think-answer consistency. Experiments on MIMIC-CXR and IU-Xray show that HERO outperforms strong supervised and reinforcement learning baselines, achieving state-of-the-art clinical efficacy while producing more rationale-supported and think-answer-consistent reports, thereby substantially mitigating clinical hallucinations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the HERO framework. During policy rollout, completions are generated as <think> and <answer> segments, with conditional GT injection to break exploration deadlocks. The model is evaluated by a heterogeneous Reward Bank ( R1 - R9 ). To optimize the policy, HERO factorizes the GRPO objective across three granularities: (1) Segment-level: routes rewards to estimate separate advantages for reasoning and diagnosis; (2) Token-level: allocates larger gradient weights to diagnostically salient tokens; and (3) Completion-level: applies an rationale-supported gate to scale the surrogate loss based on think-answer consistency. These factors are jointly optimized in a unified training objective.
MIMIC-CXR
NLG Metrics
Clinical Efficacy
B-4
MTR
RG-L
BERTScore
SRR-BERT
RadGraph
RadCliQ ↓
RateScore
GREEN
Micro-F1(14)
avg-Macro-F1(14)
w-Macro-F1(14)
Micro-F1(5)
avg-Macro-F1(5)
w-Macro-F1(5)
Llava-1.5
0.102
0.323
0.353
0.611
0.501
0.320
1.358
0.637
0.498
0.550
0.408
0.533
0.593
0.516
0.583
Llava-Next(vicuna)
0.054
0.165
0.263
0.438
0.463
0.265
1.245
0.617
0.503
0.408
0.330
0.413
0.419
0.392
0.445
Llava-Next(mistral)
0.102
0.325
0.350
0.609
0.505
0.314
1.326
0.636
0.493
0.544
0.412
0.525
0.574
0.512
0.567
Llava-Rad
0.104
0.322
0.357
0.612
0.494
0.320
1.369
0.640
0.495
0.553
0.411
0.527
0.588
0.512
0.576
Table 1: Report-level MIMIC-CXR results, all methods re-scored under one unified protocol. NLG (left) and clinical-efficacy (right) metrics; RadCliQ ( ↓ ) is lower-is-better, all others higher-is-better. Bold best, underline runner-up per column. DPO (Our rewards) is an optimizer-swap ablation under our reward.
IU-Xray
NLG Metrics
Clinical Efficacy
B-4
MTR
RG-L
BERTScore
SRR-BERT
RadGraph
RadCliQ ↓
RateScore
GREEN
Micro-F1(14)
avg-Macro-F1(14)
w-Macro-F1(14)
Micro-F1(5)
avg-Macro-F1(5)
w-Macro-F1(5)
Llava-1.5
0.072
0.293
0.332
0.597
0.483
0.310
1.073
0.613
0.628
0.387
0.076
0.247
0.033
0.019
0.030
Llava-Next(vicuna)
0.039
0.151
0.167
0.388
0.494
0.315
0.647
0.646
0.622
0.164
0.091
0.217
0.113
0.099
0.120
Llava-Next(mistral)
0.078
0.294
0.344
0.548
0.463
0.308
1.167
0.577
0.482
0.329
0.047
0.127
0.104
0.012
0.078
Llava-Rad
0.096
0.320
0.365
0.612
0.495
0.363
1.462
0.655
0.587
0.388
0.089
0.260
0.147
0.100
0.139
Table 2: Report-level IU-Xray results, all methods re-scored under one unified protocol. NLG (left) and clinical-efficacy (right) metrics; RadCliQ ( ↓ ) is lower-is-better, all others higher-is-better. Bold best, underline runner-up per column. DPO (Our rewards) is an optimizer-swap ablation under our reward.
L15
LNv
LNm
Q25
Q35
InVL
ESC
MPO
Edit
DPO
Ours
Answer-Level: Clinical Efficacy
Micro-F1(14)
0.580
0.584
0.592
0.535
0.497
0.584
0.554
0.577
0.572
0.390
0.607
avg-Macro-F1(14)
0.407
0.398
0.420
0.363
0.347
0.364
0.382
0.361
0.367
0.275
0.412
w-Macro-F1(14)
0.527
0.565
0.521
0.549
0.488
0.545
0.557
0.544
0.542
0.381
0.575
Micro-F1(5)
0.596
0.585
0.583
0.559
0.473
0.481
0.571
0.564
0.560
0.469
0.618
avg-Macro-F1(5)
0.520
0.496
0.518
0.473
0.451
0.466
0.481
0.502
0.478
0.448
0.525
Table 3: Answer-level clinical efficacy (answer JSON vs. GT, ignore convention), think–answer self-consistency (SCS, GT-free), and evidence metrics on MIMIC-CXR ( N=2047 , greedy). SCS and R6gt coincide with our reward terms R5 and R6 and are thus optimized by our method. L15 = LLaVA-1.5, LNv/LNm = LLaVA-Next (Vicuna/Mistral), Q25 = Qwen-2.5-VL-7B (SFT on our data), Q35 = Qwen-3.5-122B, InVL = InternVL-241B, ESC = ESC-RL, Edit = EditGRPO, DPO = DPO under our reward (answer JSON parseable for 36% of studies). Bold best, underline runner-up per row.
Cumulative
Ablation
Metric
Base
+L1
+L2
Full
− L1
− L2
− Gate
L3o
L2o
NLG Metrics
B-4
0.106
0.111
0.107
0.102
0.119
0.103
0.097
0.105
0.105
METEOR
0.329
0.353
0.342
0.334
0.356
0.343
0.329
0.328
0.327
ROUGE-L
0.357
0.347
0.335
0.340
0.369
0.338
0.327
0.356
0.355
BERTScore
0.610
0.606
0.602
0.617
0.618
0.589
0.579
0.612
0.607
Table 4: Ablation of the three-layer framework on MIMIC-CXR (transposed; metrics in rows, variants in columns). Bold best, underline runner-up per metric. Cumulative : Base → +L1 → +L2 → Full ( = +L3). Ablations : − L1/ − L2/ − Gate are leave-one-out from Full; L3o/L2o are single-layer variants.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Answer ak
Think mention ψk
GT gk
Score sk
Interpretation
1
1
1
+1.0
True positive correctly identified and explained.
1
0
1
+0.5
True positive, but the supporting narrative is missing.
1
1
0
−0.5
False positive accompanied by a fabricated explanation.
1
0
0
−1.0
Pure false positive without a supporting narrative.
0
0
0
+1.0
True negative correctly left unmentioned.
0
1
0
−1.0
Mentioned in the reasoning but not claimed in the answer.
Table 6: Gate response ϕevidence=σ(γ(C−δ)) at γ=5.0 , δ=0.0 . The gate is smooth and unsaturated across the attainable score range C∈[−1,1] , suppressing completions whose positive findings lack support in think without hard-masking them.
Clinical Efficacy
Micro-F1(14)
avg-Macro-F1(14)
w-Macro-F1(14)
Micro-F1(5)
avg-Macro-F1(5)
w-Macro-F1(5)
Llava-1.5 (report)
0.476
0.354
0.462
0.548
0.481
0.557
Llava-1.5 (answer)
0.470
0.341
0.456
0.541
0.473
0.552
Llava-Next(vicuna) (report)
0.362
0.299
0.378
0.391
0.389
0.443
Llava-Next(vicuna) (answer)
0.450
0.332
0.441
0.518
0.475
0.541
Llava-Next(mistral) (report)
0.499
0.384
0.484
0.557
0.456
0.556
Appendix
Table 7: Clinical efficacy on the human-annotation test set ( n=500 , greedy). “(report)” = CheXbert labels of the generated report (the <think> section; the full report for Llava-Rad, R2Gen and R2GenCMN) vs GT (ignore-uncertain); “(answer)” = parsed <answer> -JSON labels vs GT (label_f1, ignore-uncertain).
Figure 2: Qualitative comparison on MIMIC-CXR. For each study, rows are models and columns are the disease labels that are positive in the ground truth (bold) or predicted by any model. Cell colour encodes the <answer> label against the ground truth (green: correct positive, red: missed, orange: false positive, grey “?”: uncertain answer, not scored); × marks a positive answer whose own <think> negates the finding. SDP / SDR = correct diagnoses supported by the think divided by the model’s positive diagnoses / by the ground-truth disease positives (– : empty denominator); support is judged by the CheXpert rule labeler with its negation errors on these studies corrected by manual reading. (a,b) Ours recovers every co-occurring finding; (c,d) baselines contradict their own reasoning; (e) baselines add spurious positives. Labels: CM = Cardiomegaly, LO = Lung Opacity, ED = Edema, AT = Atelectasis, EF = Pleural Effusion, PNA = Pneumonia, PTX = Pneumothorax. Q25 = Qwen-2.5-VL-7B (SFT), L15 = LLaVA-1.5.
Medical report generation has made significant progress with the rise of modern vision-language models and the growing availability of large-scale medical datasets. However, hallucinations remain a major challenge, largely due to the limitations of supervised fine-tuning (SFT), which prioritizes lexical similarity to reference reports rather than clinical correctness. While reinforcement learning has shown strong performance in domains with verifiable rewards such as mathematics and code generation, its application to open-ended medical tasks remains limited. Existing work focuses on evaluating final answers, overlooking the model's reasoning, despite evidence that flawed reasoning can degrade overall performance. In this study, we propose a framework that verifies the model's reasoning process by integrating anatomical regions, bounding boxes, and region-level textual descriptions. We design spatial and factual reward mechanisms to ensure that the model's reasoning is both visually grounded and factually accurate. Starting from Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct as our base model, we adapt it to the medical domain using supervised fine-tuning, introduce reasoning capability through a cold-start SFT stage, and refine it with reinforcement learning. We find that RL provides performance gains beyond those achievable through SFT alone, and that jointly verifying both reasoning steps and final outputs yields larger improvements than verifying either in isolation. We further identify multiple modes of reward hacking in the RL stage. Finally, the model's structured think traces enhance interpretability, making its outputs easier to audit for clinical use.
We propose MARL-Rad, a multi-modal multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for radiology report generation that trains the entire agentic system on policy within its deployed radiology workflow. MARL-Rad addresses the limitation of post-hoc agentization, where fixed LLMs are organized into hand-designed agentic workflows without being optimized for their assigned roles. Our framework decomposes chest X-ray interpretation into region-specific agents and a global integrating agent, and jointly optimizes them using clinically verifiable rewards. Experiments on the MIMIC-CXR and IU X-ray datasets show that MARL-Rad consistently improves clinical efficacy metrics such as RadGraph, CheXbert, and GREEN scores, achieving state-of-the-art clinical efficacy performance. Further analyses show that MARL-Rad improves laterality consistency and produces more accurate and detailed reports. A blinded clinician evaluation further suggests that MARL-Rad produces reports clinically comparable to ground-truth reports.
Kaito Baba, Risa Kishikawa, Satoshi Kodera
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Radiology report generation (RRG) has recently benefited from large language models, which substantially improve report fluency. However, clinically faithful generation remains challenging because current supervision is still imposed mostly at the report level. This creates a granularity mismatch: radiology reports are composed of disease-grounded findings, while existing methods are trained mainly with whole-report objectives. To address this problem, we propose Graph-Supervised Hierarchical Clinical Alignment, which reformulates image-report supervision as a hierarchical clinical alignment problem. Our method structures this alignment as a disease-conditioned process, where supervision is decomposed into two levels: Disease-Centric Alignment for fine-grained disease-specific correspondence, and Global Clinical Semantic Alignment for report-level semantic coherence. A clinical knowledge graph is used as a training-time-only structural prior that defines disease-specific supervision units and their clinical relationships, introducing no additional overhead at inference. Because standard contrastive alignment could produce false negatives when studies share overlapping pathologies, we combine instance-conditioned discriminative matching with disease-conditioned soft regularization, enabling fine-grained yet clinically consistent cross-modal representations. Experiments on MIMIC-CXR, IU-Xray, and COV-CTR show that our method consistently improves performance on both conventional and clinical metrics. Notably, our 3B model surpasses several prior systems with larger 7B/13B backbones, suggesting that improving supervision structure, rather than increasing model size, can be more effective for RRG.
Yingshu Li, Yunyi Liu, Zhanyu Wang +4
University of Sydney Sydney, Australia · University of Wollongong Wollongong, Australia · University of Adelaide Adelaide, Australia