Mechanistically Guided LoRA Improves Paraphrase Consistency in Medical Vision-Language Models
Organizations: SAIL Lab, University of New Haven, CT, USA
Abstract
Medical Vision-Language Models can give different yes or no answers to rephrasings of the same clinical question. We study this in MedGemma-4B using PSF-Med Sadanandan and Behzadan (2025), which provides paraphrase pairs for systematic consistency evaluation on medical VQA. On MIMIC-CXR binary questions (n = 158), the baseline flip rate is 14.6% and mean margin difference is 1.63 logits. We validate that Gemma Scope 2 Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) transfer to MedGemma activations, achieving R2 ~= 0.997 on both medical and general text (n = 100 prompts each, p < 0.001 for exceeding a 0.95 threshold). We then fine-tune Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapters with a combined loss that balances paraphrase consistency with answer accuracy. This combined approach prevents mode collapse that occurs with pure consistency training while reducing flip rate from 14.6% to 4.4% (p = 0.002, two-proportion z-test) and margin difference from 1.63 to 0.33 (79.5% reduction). Accuracy remains stable at 84.2% baseline versus 82.3% after training (-1.9pp, not significant). On PadChest Balanced (n = 250), flip rate drops from 13.6% to 7.8%, mean margin difference drops from 1.08 to 0.35 (67.9% reduction), and accuracy increases from 66.4% to 69.4%. A layer-range ablation shows that early layers reduce margin differences more than mechanistically selected middle layers.
Figures & tables
| Quantity | Original | Paraphrase |
|---|---|---|
| Question | “Is there pleural effusion?” | “Is pleural fluid present?” |
| Margin (yes no) | 8.75 | |
| Feature 3818 | 0 | 268 |
| Prompt type | Mean F3818 | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presence | 344.5 | 302 to 386 | 4 |
| Exclusion | 0.0 | 0 to 0 | 4 |
| Uncertainty | 169.5 | 0 to 282 | 4 |
| Token control | 296.0 | 272 to 342 | 4 |
| Model | Flip Rate | Margin Diff | Acc |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 14.6% (23/158) | 1.63 | 84.2% |
| + LoRA | 4.4% (7/158) | 0.33 | 82.3% |
| Layers | Margin Diff | Reduction | Params |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1.87 | N/A | 0 |
| Early (0 to 10) | 0.26 | 86% | 4.8M |
| Middle (15 to 19) | 0.38 | 80% | 4.4M |
| Late (25 to 33) | 0.70 | 63% | 7.9M |
| Model | Accuracy | Margin Diff | Flip Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 66.4% | 1.08 | 13.6% |
| + LoRA | 69.4% | 0.35 | 7.8% |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| LoRA rank ( ) | 16 |
| LoRA alpha ( ) | 32 |
| LoRA dropout | 0.05 |
| Target layers | 15 to 19 (LM only) |
| Target modules | q,k,v,o; gate,up,down |
| Learning rate |
| Metric | Medical | General |
|---|---|---|
| FVU | 0.28% | 0.26% |
| L0 (features) |
| Feature | Response Rate ( ) | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| 3818 | 10% (3/30) | 11.3 |
| Controls (10) | 0% (0/300) |
| Prompt Pair (Formal / Casual) | F3818 | F3818 |
|---|---|---|
| Formal | Casual | |
| “Is there radiographic evidence of pneumo…” / “Does the image show air in the chest cav…” | 144 | 129 |
| “Is there evidence of pulmonary nodules?” / “Can you see any lumps in the lungs?” | 0 | 185 |
| “Is there evidence of mass?” / “Can you see a tumor?” | 0 | 140 |
| Metric | Baseline | +LoRA |
|---|---|---|
| Binary questions | 158 | 158 |
| Ground truth Yes | 79 | 79 |
| Ground truth No | 79 | 79 |
| Flips | 23 | 7 |
| Flip rate | 14.6% | 4.4% |
| Flip reduction | N/A | 69.6% |
| Layers | Margin Diff | Reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1.87 | N/A |
| Early (0 to 10) | 0.26 | 86% |
| Random (5 to 9) | 0.30 | 84% |
| All (0 to 33) | 0.34 | 82% |
| Middle (15 to 19) | 0.38 | 80% |
| Late (25 to 33) | 0.70 | 63% |
| Metric | Baseline | +LoRA |
|---|---|---|
| Flip rate | 13.6% | 7.8% |
| Mean margin diff | 1.08 | 0.35 |
| Margin reduction | N/A | 67.9% |
| Accuracy | 66.4% | 69.4% |
Medical VLMs
Medical vision-language models connect clinical images with text for diagnosis, reporting, question answering, and image grounding.
See all 458 papers