When Evidence Vanishes: Distilling Visual-Evidence Dependency in Medical Vision-Language Models
Authors: Qizhen Lan, Yiling Ma, Ruiqi Chen, Mengchen Fan, Xi Xiao, Lin Zhao, Liang He, Baocheng Geng, Pulin Che, Tianyang Wang, Xiaoqian Jiang
Organizations: The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · Yale University · University of Michigan · University of Alabama at Birmingham · Northeastern University · ETH Zurich
Compact medical vision-language models (VLMs) can answer clinical questions correctly without reliably using the image, relying instead on question wording or learned priors. Standard knowledge distillation copies a teacher's answer preference on the original image, but it leaves unchecked whether that preference is conditional on the visual evidence required by the question. We study this missing target as medical visual evidence dependency: support for the correct answer should decrease when the matched evidence is absent. We introduce Evidence-Conditioned Dependency Distillation (ECDD), which pairs each training image with a control matched to the evidence level and distills the teacher's drop in answer margin across the pair. A lower bound objective transfers positive dependency by penalizing only shortfalls, while original-image supervision preserves task accuracy. The same formulation applies when the evidence is a queried clinical region, a surgical instrument, or whole-image visual content. Across three medical VQA settings, ECDD keeps original-image accuracy competitive with distillation and alignment baselines while making answer support more sensitive to evidence removal. Under the DME headline objective, for example, the positive-case margin response to target rather than random masking rises from 0.786 with KD to 2.023 with ECDD, while original-image accuracy differs by 0.11 points. These results suggest that medical VLM distillation should transfer both the teacher's answer preference and its dependence on visual evidence.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Static answer distillation vs. evidence-dependency distillation. Standard distillation copies the teacher’s answer scores on the original image only, leaving the evidence-removed endpoint unseen. ECDD instead compares the original image x with an evidence-ablated control A(x) and distills the teacher’s dependency gap, measured as the drop in the margin between the gold answer and the hardest negative. Here, y+ is the gold answer and y− is the strongest wrong answer.
Figure 2: Overview of ECDD. ECDD pairs each original image with a level-matched control in which the relevant visual evidence is absent. The teacher’s original-to-control margin drop is cached as a dependency target, and the student is trained with original-image supervision plus a one-sided dependency constraint that penalizes only shortfalls in evidence dependence.
Task
Method
Qwen-3B
InternVL-2B
Orig Acc ↑
Evid. Gap ↑
Rand. Gap →0
Specific Δm↑
Orig Acc ↑
Evid. Gap ↑
Rand. Gap →0
Specific Δm↑
Lesion presence
Teacher
69.39
3.81
2.18
3.094
81.26
16.99
-1.85
4.396
Base
46.19
1.85
3.16
0.300
77.67
17.32
2.29
2.750
SFT
62.96
3.05
-0.87
0.990
71.35
7.52
-4.90
1.330
KD [ 17 ]
80.50
3.81
-0.11
0.786
77.78
12.85
-5.45
1.410
DBiLD [ 29 ]
80.28
4.68
-0.11
1.050
78.87
14.60
-5.12
1.830
Table 1: DME localized evidence results. Lesion presence has n=918 test questions; lesion localization has n=300 . Specific Δm is the target-minus-matched-random/distractor margin response, averaged over positive cases ( Δm+ ) for presence and all cases for localization. Rand. Gap is ranked by distance to zero. The Qwen-3B presence KD row uses the task-matched recipe in Table 5 . Bold and underline mark the best and second-best trained rows; Teacher and Base are unranked diagnostic references.
Method
Orig Acc ↑
Rand. Acc ↑
Evid. Gap ↑
Evid. Δm+↑
Evid.-Rand. Δm+↑
Base
68.00
68.67
-2.00
0.328
0.290
SFT
61.00
45.67
27.33
1.210
0.511
KD [ 17 ]
72.67
51.33
36.00
1.495
0.589
Beta-KD [ 30 ]
65.33
46.00
32.00
1.698
0.704
DBiLD [ 29 ]
68.67
47.00
35.00
1.660
0.676
MedAlign [ 8 ]
72.00
53.33
33.00
1.788
0.685
Table 2: Surgical instrument evidence on RoboSurg-VQA Q8 ( n=300 ). Evidence denotes EndoVis2017 instrument pixels. Rand. Acc uses a same-area random mask. Evid. Gap, Evid. Δm+ , and Evid.-Rand. Δm+ measure instrument-specific evidence dependence. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best trained rows; Base is an unadapted reference and is not ranked.
Method
Orig Acc ↑
VEA Acc ↓
VEA Gap ↑
ΔmVEA↑
Ret. mVEA↓
ECE / Brier ↓
Base
62.17
56.72
5.44
0.120
0.694
8.78 / 47.06
SFT
88.55
82.27
6.28
0.751
0.727
2.14 / 17.07
KD [ 17 ]
86.79
81.17
5.62
0.408
0.694
8.84 / 21.34
Beta-KD [ 30 ]
86.91
81.95
4.97
0.604
0.699
2.10 / 19.37
MedAlign [ 8 ]
84.62
79.30
5.32
0.439
0.663
7.28 / 23.65
DBiLD [ 29 ]
84.00
78.67
5.32
0.450
0.661
6.53 / 24.28
Table 3: PathVQA closed yes/no results ( n=3,362 ). VEA Acc evaluates the visual-evidence-absent control against the original label. ΔmVEA and retained margin measure confidence-level evidence dependence. ECE and Brier are computed on original images. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best trained rows; Base is an unadapted reference and is not ranked.
Figure 3: Representative evidence-control construction. The question and answer candidates stay fixed while visual evidence is removed or degraded at the relevant level: global for PathVQA, lesion-local for DME, and instrument-local for RoboSurg-VQA.
Method
Full Acc. ↑
Conflict Acc. ↑
Question-only prior
85.48
– (defines subset)
SFT
88.55
61.89
KD [ 17 ]
86.79
62.70
DBiLD [ 29 ]
84.00
59.84
MedAlign [ 8 ]
84.62
60.25
A3Tune [ 7 ]
85.22
54.30
Table 4: PathVQA prior-conflict evaluation. The conflict subset is selected only by errors of the frozen question-only model. The ECDD row uses the staged PathVQA recipe in Section C.1 .
Variant
Orig. ↑
ROI Gap ↑
Rand. Gap →0
ROI–Rand. Δm+↑
Matched KD
80.50
3.81
-0.11
0.786
Constant lower bound
80.39
7.52
-0.54
0.971
Two-sided matching
80.17
15.47
0.54
1.755
Random-region endpoint
79.96
2.40
-0.65
0.747
ECDD (ours)
80.39
16.88
0.87
2.023
Table 5: DME ablation under the headline objective. All rows use the same joint CE+KD task objective, optimization rule, and training budget. Only the dependency target or endpoint changes.
Figure 4: Target-region evidence specificity. On the DME lesion-presence VQA, bars show positive-case gold-margin drop under a target ROI mask or a same-area random mask. Across Qwen-3B and InternVL-2B, ECDD increases the target-ROI response over matched KD while keeping the random-mask response small. Teacher is an untuned diagnostic reference.
Method
Orig. Acc. ↑
Target Δm+↑
Random Δm+→0
Specific Δm+↑
SFT
62.96
0.642
-0.103
0.744
Matched KD
80.50
0.746
-0.032
0.778
ECDD
80.39
1.167
-0.033
1.200
Table 6: Transfer to Telea inpainting on DME. Orig. Acc. repeats the reported original-image evaluation in Table 1 ; the remaining columns evaluate the frozen checkpoints with Telea inpainting. ECDD saw zero-filled ROI controls during training, whereas SFT and KD did not use evidence-control supervision. The ECDD gain over KD in specific response is +0.423 with an image-cluster bootstrap 95% CI of [0.378,0.467] .
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Training control
Evaluation controls
DME
Target ROI zero mask
Target/random mask, blur, Telea
RoboSurg
Instrument zero mask
Instrument/random mask
PathVQA
Global blank
Blank, degraded/global controls
Appendix
Table A1 : Training endpoints and evaluation controls. DME blur and Telea inpainting are held out from training. Random masks are specificity controls.
Metric
ECDD–DBiLD
95% CI
Test
Orig Acc (pp)
0.11
[−0.87,1.09]
McNemar p=1.00
ROI Gap (pp)
12.20
[9.59,14.92]
bootstrap
ROI–Rand. Δm+
0.97
[0.91,1.03]
bootstrap
Appendix
Table A2 : Paired DME bootstrap deltas for the Qwen lesion-presence block. Deltas are ECDD minus DBiLD on the same test examples. Accuracy is used as a preservation metric; the larger positive deltas are on the evidence-dependency diagnostics.
Setting
λECDD
ρ
τ
DME, Qwen-3B
0.02
0.5
8
DME, InternVL-2B
0.05
0.7
8
RoboSurg-VQA, Qwen-3B
0.03
0.5
4
PathVQA, Qwen-3B (continuation)
0.05
1.0
8
Appendix
ECDD settings used for the reported comparison rows.
Variant
Orig. Acc.
ROI Gap
Rand. Gap
ROI–Rand. Δm+
Matched KD
80.50
3.81
-0.11
0.786
Matched KD + anchor
80.28
4.14
-0.76
0.781
Appendix
Table A3 : Reference anchor control with the headline objective.
Endpoint
Teacher Pred. Yes
KD Pred. Yes
ECDD Pred. Yes
ECDD Acc.
ECDD confusion [YY, YN, NY, NN]
ECDD pos. margin median
Original
58.17
47.71
49.35
80.39
[327, 54, 126, 411]
1.000
Target ROI mask
28.00
22.98
5.45
63.51
[48, 333, 2, 535]
-1.250
Same-area random mask
57.84
46.51
48.04
79.52
[317, 64, 124, 413]
1.000
Blank
0.00
0.00
0.00
58.50
[0, 381, 0, 537]
-0.625
ROI blur
35.51
27.78
16.78
71.13
[135, 246, 19, 518]
-0.250
Appendix
Table A4 : DME endpoint prediction distributions for the headline ECDD model. Percentages are computed over 918 test questions. YY and NN denote correct positive and negative predictions; YN and NY denote the two error directions.
Control
Teacher
SFT
Matched KD
ECDD
Target ROI mask
3.254
0.928
0.835
2.072
Same-area random mask
0.161
-0.064
0.049
0.049
Held-out ROI blur
2.164
0.550
0.692
1.215
Appendix
Table A5 : Positive-case gold-margin drop under DME controls. Training uses the target ROI mask; ROI blur and Telea inpainting are held out for evaluation.
Method
Orig. Acc.
Target Δm+
Random Δm+
Target–Random Δm+
SFT
62.96
0.642
-0.103
0.744
Matched KD
80.50
0.746
-0.032
0.778
ECDD
80.39
1.167
-0.033
1.200
Appendix
Table A6 : Transfer to held-out content-aware ROI inpainting on DME. Orig. Acc. repeats the reported original-image evaluation in Table 1 ; the margin responses use the frozen checkpoints under Telea. The random control uses the same inpainting operator and a shifted mask with the same geometry and area, selected to minimize target overlap.
Dataset
Method
Orig. Acc.
Dependency response
ECDD–KD gain
DME
SFT
63.91±1.12
1.176±0.218
–
KD
80.46±0.82
0.740±0.051
–
ECDD
80.46±0.91
1.954±0.101
1.213±0.054
PathVQA
SFT
88.65±0.07
0.848±0.122
–
KD
86.87±0.21
0.444±0.065
–
ECDD
89.81±0.40
4.105±0.297
3.661±0.241
Appendix
Table A7 : Three-seed robustness. Reported gains are mean ± sample standard deviation of the seed-wise paired ECDD–KD differences. The dependency-response gains are +1.213±0.054 , +3.661±0.241 , and +0.125±0.026 on DME, PathVQA, and RoboSurg-VQA, respectively. The corresponding original-accuracy differences are 0.00±0.29 , +2.93±0.51 , and +0.33±0.67 points.
Figure A1 : Single-factor sensitivity for the DME training configuration. Blue reports target-ROI minus random-region positive-case margin response; red reports original-image accuracy. Diamonds mark the headline setting.
Type
n
SFT Orig.
ECDD Orig.
SFT Q-only gap
ECDD Q-only gap
Presence
1,561
85.78
87.00
8.71
8.90
Morphology/histology
1,386
94.88
95.17
4.04
24.03
Other
415
77.83
78.80
10.84
11.81
Appendix
Table A8 : PathVQA question-type behavior. The Q-only gap subtracts the accuracy of the same trained VLM with its image input omitted from its original-image accuracy. This endpoint differs from both the blank-image VEA evaluation and the separately trained question-only model used to define the prior-conflict subset.
Figure A2 : PathVQA multi-control VEA diagnostic ( n=3,362 ). Lower retained margin means less original answer support survives the evidence-absent or degraded control. ECDD denotes the staged PathVQA model.
Medical vision--language models (VLMs) have shown strong potential for medical visual question answering (VQA), yet their reasoning remains largely text-centric: images are encoded once as static context, and subsequent inference is dominated by language. This paradigm is fundamentally limited in clinical scenarios, where accurate answers often depend on subtle, localized visual evidence that cannot be reliably preserved in static embeddings. We propose MedLVR, a latent visual reasoning framework that introduces an explicit visual evidence state into autoregressive decoding. Instead of relying solely on text-based intermediate reasoning, MedLVR interleaves a short latent reasoning segment within the decoder by reusing hidden states as continuous latent steps, enabling iterative preservation and refinement of query-relevant visual evidence before answer generation. To support effective visual supervision, we adopt a two-stage training strategy: region of interest (ROI)-supervised fine-tuning aligns latent states with clinically relevant image evidence, and Visual-Latent Policy Optimization (VLPO) further optimizes latent reasoning and answer generation under outcome-level rewards. Experiments on OmniMedVQA and five external medical VQA benchmarks show that MedLVR consistently outperforms recent reasoning baselines and improves the average score over the Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbone from 48.3% to 53.4%. These results show that latent visual reasoning provides an effective mechanism for preserving diagnostically relevant visual evidence and improving the reliability of medical VQA.
Suyang Xi, Songtao Hu, Yuxiang Lai +4
Department of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, 30322, GA, USA · Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, 30322, GA, USA
A central goal of vision-language model (VLM) distillation is to transfer both the teacher's language capabilities and its visual understanding. However, existing methods primarily supervise the student's output, leaving visual understanding implicit. Our analysis reveals that a student can match the teacher's answer without relying on the same visual evidence, raising the question: how can we ensure the student responds to the visual information that actually determines the answer? To this end, we propose Cross-World On-Policy Distillation (CW-OPD), which explicitly supervises the student's response to changes in visual evidence. For each example, CW-OPD constructs two visual worlds that share the question and scene context but differ in answer-critical evidence, yielding different answers. We perform on-policy distillation in both worlds and distill the teacher's cross-world belief transition, encouraging the student to match not only what the teacher predicts but also why its prediction changes with the evidence. A gradient analysis shows that this term is invariant to errors shared by both worlds and supplies a corrective signal invisible to endpoint matching alone. In this way, CW-OPD makes reliance on the relevant visual evidence an explicit distillation target rather than an implicit consequence of output matching. To diagnose whether a model truly grounds its answers in visual evidence, we introduce CWBench, which measures cross-world consistency via Cross-World Pair Accuracy (CWPA). Experiments on Qwen3.5-4B show that CW-OPD outperforms the strongest baseline by 1.2 points on average, and the 4B student exceeds DeepSeek-V4.1 (552B) by 22.4 CWPA points on CWBench. Code is released in https://github.com/baokou-fw2/CWAD.
The reasoning gap between large and compact vision-language models (VLMs) limits the deployment of medical AI on portable clinical devices. Compact VLMs of 2--4B parameters can run on resource-constrained hardware but lack the multi-step reasoning capacity needed for interpretable clinical decision support. Existing knowledge distillation methods transfer answers without the reasoning process behind them. Medical visual question answering (VQA) serves as a testbed for this problem, as it requires models to integrate visual evidence with clinical knowledge through structured reasoning chains. We introduce LiteMedCoT-VL, a pipeline that transfers chain-of-thought reasoning from a 235B teacher model to 2B student models through LoRA-based fine-tuning on explanation-enriched training data. All inference is conducted without image captions by default, simulating the clinical scenario in which a physician interprets a medical image directly without an accompanying radiology report. On the PMC-VQA benchmark, LiteMedCoT-VL achieves 64.9% accuracy, exceeding the zero-shot Qwen3-VL-4B baseline of 53.9% by 11.0 percentage points and outperforming all published baselines. This result indicates that a 2B model with reasoning distillation can match or exceed models with twice the parameters. Visual grounding analysis shows that the model relies on image content rather than exploiting textual priors. Our code is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LiteMedCoT-VL.
Runze Ma, Shunbo Jia, Haonan Lyu +2
School of Information Technology Monash University Malaysia · Faculty of Innovation Engineering Macau University of Science and Technology · Department of Bioelectronics Faculty of Biomedical Engineering Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology +1