cs.CVFeb 24, 2026

Mechanistically Guided LoRA Improves Paraphrase Consistency in Medical Vision-Language Models

Authors: Binesh Sadanandan, Vahid Behzadan

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

Appendix figures & tables9 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Feb 24, 2026

PSF-Med: Measuring and Explaining Paraphrase Sensitivity in Medical Vision Language Models

Medical Vision Language Models (VLMs) can change their answers when clinicians rephrase the same question, a failure mode that threatens deployment safety. We introduce PSF-Med, a benchmark of 26,850 chest X-ray questions paired with 92,856 meaning-preserving paraphrases across MIMIC-CXR, PadChest, and VinDr-CXR, spanning clinical populations in the US, Spain, and Vietnam. Every paraphrase is validated by an LLM judge using a bidirectional clinical entailment rubric, with 91.6% cross-family agreement. Across nine VLMs, including general-purpose models, we find flip rates from 3% to 37%. However, low flip rate does not imply visual grounding: text-only baselines show that some models stay consistent even when the image is removed, suggesting they rely on language priors. To study mechanisms in one model, we apply GemmaScope 2 Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to MedGemma 4B and analyze FlipBank, a curated set of 158 flip cases. We identify a sparse feature at layer 17 that correlates with prompt framing and predicts decision margin shifts. In causal patching, removing this feature's contribution recovers 45% of the yes-minus-no logit margin on average and fully reverses 15% of flips. Acting on this finding, we show that clamping the identified feature at inference reduces flip rates by 31% relative with only a 1.3 percentage-point accuracy cost, while also decreasing text-prior reliance. These results suggest that flip rate alone is not enough; robustness evaluations should test both paraphrase stability and image reliance.
Apr 10, 2026

Predictive Entropy as a Joint Screen for Error and Paraphrase Instability in Medical Vision-Language Models

Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answering binary presence questions on chest radiographs can fail in two linked ways: they are confidently wrong, and they change answers when a clinically equivalent question is rephrased. In a binary answer head both failures track the same logit margin, so we test how well one score screens for both. On MedGemma-4B-IT across MIMIC-CXR (in-distribution, n=196) and PadChest (out-of-distribution, n=861), single-pass predictive entropy predicts which yes/no answers flip under rephrasing with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.823 on PadChest and 0.821 on MIMIC, and the signal is stable across five random seeds (0.828±\pm0.021). The same signal replicates on LLaVA-RAD-7B (AUROC 0.83) and is invariant to the flip definition (all, operator-preserving, or negation-excluded rewrites), so the screen needs no semantic filter at inference. One low-entropy threshold drives error and flip rate down together (3.3% and 5.7% at 80% coverage), and threshold selection transfers to a held-out split. Under cross-site shift the more expensive methods we test add nothing practical: at the 5% risk target a single forward pass answers 88.5% of cases, matching Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout, and beats the uniformly averaged five-seed adapter ensemble on error detection by 0.111 AUROC. Even a model that is 91% accurate still contradicts itself on 13% of items under rephrasing, and one forward pass flags them.
Mar 22, 2026

Consistent but Dangerous: Per-Sample Safety Classification Reveals False Reliability in Medical Vision-Language Models

Consistency under paraphrase, the property that semantically equivalent prompts yield identical predictions, is increasingly used as a proxy for reliability when deploying medical vision-language models (VLMs). We show this proxy is fundamentally flawed: a model can achieve perfect consistency by relying on text patterns rather than the input image. We introduce a four-quadrant per-sample safety taxonomy that jointly evaluates consistency (stable predictions across paraphrased prompts) and image reliance (predictions that change when the image is removed). Samples are classified as Ideal (consistent and image-reliant), Fragile (inconsistent but image-reliant), Dangerous (consistent but not image-reliant), or Worst (inconsistent and not image-reliant). Evaluating five medical VLM configurations across two chest X-ray datasets (MIMIC-CXR, PadChest), we find that LoRA fine-tuning dramatically reduces flip rates but shifts a majority of samples into the Dangerous quadrant: LLaVA-Rad Base achieves a 1.5% flip rate on PadChest while 98.5% of its samples are Dangerous. Critically, Dangerous samples exhibit high accuracy (up to 99.6%) and low entropy, making them invisible to standard confidence-based screening. We observe a negative correlation between flip rate and Dangerous fraction (r = -0.89, n=10) and recommend that deployment evaluations always pair consistency checks with a text-only baseline: a single additional forward pass that exposes the false reliability trap.