Diagnostic Benchmark

We introduce JMed48k, a multi-profession Japanese healthcare licensing benchmark for evaluating vision-language models. Built from official PDF materials released by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, JMed48k contains 48,862 exam questions and 20,142 images from 11 national licensing examinations between 2005 and 2025, with visual content annotated under an 8-type taxonomy. From this corpus, we derive JMed48k-Eval, a recent five-year evaluation subset with 12,484 scored questions, including 9,905 text-only questions and 2,579 questions with images. We evaluate 21 proprietary, open-source, and medical-specific models, reporting text-only and with-image performance separately. Because these subsets contain different questions, we further introduce a paired image-removal audit that evaluates questions with images before and after removing visual content to explore four answer-transition states. The audit shows that proprietary and open source models gain substantially from images, whereas medical-specific systems show limited observable use of visual evidence, with many correct answers persisting after image removal. Even among proprietary models, the net image-removal effect varies sevenfold across professions, from +5.7 points on Physician questions to +39.8 points on Public Health Nurse questions. We release JMed48k to support reproducible, profession-stratified evaluation of vision-language models in medical licensing settings.

Large language models perform well on static medical examinations, yet clinical diagnosis often requires iterative evidence gathering under uncertainty. Building on prior interactive evaluation efforts, we introduce an OSCE-inspired standardized patient simulator and a controlled, reproducible benchmark for active diagnostic inquiry. Across 468 cases and 15 models in our protocol, we observe that multi-turn evidence seeking reduces diagnostic accuracy by 12.75% and lowers supporting-evidence quality by 24.36% relative to full-context evaluation; error analyses associate these drops with premature diagnostic closure and inefficient questioning. Together, these results suggest that static full-context benchmarks may overestimate performance in interactive evidence-seeking settings, motivating complementary interactive assessment for safer clinical decision support.

Experienced physicians develop diagnostic expertise through clinical practice, acquiring not only disease knowledge but also the ability to differentiate confusable conditions. Current medical vision-language models (VLMs) lack this capability -- their parameters encode static knowledge that does not evolve across diagnostic encounters. We propose MedExpMem, an experience memory framework enabling VLM-based diagnostic agents to accumulate differential diagnosis expertise. Unlike retrieval-augmented generation, which retrieves encyclopedic disease descriptions, MedExpMem memorizes discriminative experience derived from the agent's own diagnostic failures and organizes them as pairwise differential notes encoding key discriminators, actionable decision rules and reasoning error patterns. The framework adopts a two-phase construction process mirroring physician learning: initial practice exposes knowledge gaps, and reflective re-diagnosis refines understanding. When encountering new cases, the agent retrieves experience memory to guide differential reasoning. We evaluate MedExpMem on a radiology benchmark spanning 11 subspecialties. Results demonstrate consistent accuracy improvements, maximum 7.0%, across diverse models and scales. Analytical experiments validate experience quality and robustness, demonstrating MedExpMem as a competitive method addresses medical adaptation needs beyond the reach of parameteric learning.

Biomedical named entity recognition (NER) and entity linking (EL) strongly depend on annotated corpora, but the utility of these resources for benchmarking is often assumed rather than characterized. We present a corpus-centric framework for diagnosing benchmark-relevant properties directly from corpus annotations, concept links, train-test splits, document metadata, and terminology mappings. The framework organizes standardized statistics into five families: (1) scale, density and label distribution, (2) lexical and conceptual structure, (3) train-test overlap, (4) metadata composition, and (5) terminology coverage where applicable. Applying the framework to nine corpora spanning diseases, chemicals, and cell types, we find that corpus properties can differ substantially, even when they address the same apparent task. We find differences in the evaluation signal they provide, the generalization demands they impose, the degree of train-test reuse they permit, and the regions of biomedical literature and concept space they represent. These differences suggest that commonly reported corpus statistics can be insufficient to characterize what biomedical NER and EL benchmarks evaluate. We argue that corpus-centric diagnostics provide a practical framework for analyzing corpora beyond surface descriptors such as corpus size and entity type, for identifying potential transfer risks, and for interpreting the scope of benchmarking conclusions. We release the framework as open-source code with an interactive dashboard to support reproducing our analyses and characterizing additional corpora.

LLM agents increasingly have access to private user data and act on the user's behalf when interacting with third-party systems. The user defines what may and must not be shared, and the agent must robustly follow that intent even when third-party systems behave adversarially. We introduce POLAR-Bench (Policy-aware adversarial Benchmark), in which a trusted model with a privacy policy and a task converses with a third-party model that adversarially probes for both task-relevant and protected attributes. Across 10 domains and 7,852 samples, we score privacy and utility by deterministic set-membership and vary privacy policy dimension and attack strategy along two orthogonal axes, producing a 5 times 5 diagnostic surface per model. Our results reveal a sharp split: current frontier models withhold over 99% of protected attributes, while smaller open-weight models in the 1--30B range, the class users most commonly run as their own trusted agent on-device or via private inference, score notably worse, with the weakest leaking over half. POLAR-Bench thus localizes where each model's intent-following breaks down, providing a foothold for privacy alignment where it matters most.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) have enabled general-purpose systems to demonstrate promising capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, including those in the medical domain. Medical Visual Question Answering (MedVQA) has particularly benefited from these developments. However, despite Bangla being one of the most widely spoken languages globally, there exists no established MedVQA benchmark for it. To address this gap, we introduce BanglaMedVQA, a dataset comprising clinically validated image-question-answer pairs, along with a comprehensive evaluation of current foundation models on this resource. Consistent with prior findings that report low performance of current models on English MedVQA benchmarks, our analysis reveals that Bangla performance is substantially lower, reflecting the challenges inherent to low-resource languages. Even top-performing models such as Gemini and GPT-4.1 mini fail to accurately answer specialized diagnostic questions, indicating severe limitations in fine-grained medical reasoning. Although certain open-source models, such as Gemma-3, occasionally outperform these models in general categories, they too struggle with clinically complex questions, underscoring the urgent need for top-notch evaluation method.

Despite the rapid advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs), a critical gap remains in their ability to handle structured, controllable diagrammatic tasks essential for professional workflows. Existing methods predominantly rely on pixel-based synthesis, which operates in probabilistic pixel spaces and is inherently limited in editability and fidelity. Instead, we propose a new Diagram-as-Code paradigm with symbolic logic that leverages mxGraph Extensible Markup Language (XML) for precise diagram generation and editing. We present VCG-Bench, a unified benchmark for visual-centric \texttt{mxGraph} tasks. VCG-Bench comprises: (1) a taxonomized dataset of 1,449 diverse diagrams spanning 6 domains and 15 sub-domains, (2) a paradigm definition that integrates Generation (Vision-to-Code) and Editability (Code-to-Code), (3) a Tailored Evaluation Protocol employing multi-dimensional metrics such as \texttt{mxGraph} Execution Success Rate, Style Consistency Score (SCS), etc. Experimental results highlight the challenges faced by current State-of-the-Art (SOTA) VLMs in structured fidelity and instruction compliance, reflecting their vision and reasoning capabilities.

Longitudinal chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation requires reasoning over disease evolution across multiple patient visits, yet most existing medical VQA benchmarks focus on single images or short-horizon image pairs. We introduce MI-CXR, a benchmark for standardized evaluation of Multi-Interval longitudinal reasoning over multi-visit CXR sequences, without requiring free-form report generation or additional clinical context. MI-CXR comprises five-way multiple-choice questions over five-visit patient timelines and instantiates three complementary task families: Temporal Event Localization, Interval-wise Change Reasoning, and Global Trajectory Summarization, which assess clinically grounded visual reasoning over time. Evaluating 14 state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) shows low overall performance, with an average accuracy of 29.3%, only modestly above random guessing. Using stage-wise diagnostic probing, we find that models often produce locally plausible interval descriptions but fail to enforce temporal constraints or compose evidence into globally consistent decisions over the full timeline. These findings reveal key limitations of current VLMs and establish MI-CXR as a principled benchmark for longitudinal medical reasoning. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/AIDASLab/MI-CXR

Inpatient medication recommendation requires clinicians to repeatedly select specific medications, doses, and routes as a patient's condition evolves. Existing benchmarks formulate this task as admission-level prediction over coarse drug codes with multi-hot diagnostic and procedure code inputs, failing to capture the per-timepoint, information-rich nature of real prescribing. We propose RxEval, a prescription-level benchmark that evaluates LLM prescribing capability by multiple-choice questions: each question presents a detailed patient profile and time-ordered clinical trajectory, requiring selection of specific medication-dose-route triples from real prescriptions and patient-specific distractors generated via reasoning-chain perturbation. RxEval comprises 1,547 questions spanning 584 patients, 18 diagnostic categories, and 969 unique medications. Evaluation of 16 LLMs shows that RxEval is both challenging and discriminative: F1 ranges from 45.18 to 77.10 across models, and the best Exact Match is only 46.10%. Error analysis reveals that even frontier models may overlook stated patient information and fail to derive clinical conclusions.

This paper audits benchmark evaluation in clinical-interview depression detection through four complementary probes across DAIC/E-DAIC, CMDC, ANDROIDS, MODMA, and PDCH. First, we re-evaluate E-DAIC under strict subject-disjoint leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. A lightweight hybrid text-plus-LLM-score model reaches macro-F1 = 0.723 - the highest reported under this protocol, to our knowledge - providing a conservative out-of-fold reference point that does not depend on the privileged official holdout. Second, we test whether the E-DAIC official split supports fine-grained leaderboard rankings by sweeping 96 model configurations across modality bundles, pooling strategies, and learners. Development-side cross-validation and official-test rankings align only moderately: the best cross-validation configuration ranks twentieth on the official test, the official-test winner ranks forty-first by cross-validation, top-3 overlap is zero, and the apparent winner is rank-1 in only 32.3% of subject bootstraps. Third, we externally validate strong public CMDC and ANDROIDS baselines that achieve near-ceiling in-domain performance. Zero-shot transfer to external corpora is substantially weaker. Finally, we stress-test E-DAIC text and audio models using paired symptom-dense versus symptom-light interview slices defined by an SRDS-based annotator. Text scores rise sharply on symptom-dense slices, whereas audio scores remain nearly flat; the text-minus-audio gap is positive across all five seeds.

We introduce AcuityBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language models identify the appropriate urgency of care from user medical presentations. Existing health benchmarks emphasize medical question answering, broad health interactions, or narrow workflow-specific triage tasks, but they do not offer a unified evaluation of acuity identification across these settings. AcuityBench addresses this gap by harmonizing five public datasets spanning user conversations, online forum posts, clinical vignettes, and patient portal messages under a shared four-level acuity framework ranging from home monitoring to immediate emergency care. The benchmark contains 914 cases, including 697 consensus cases for standard accuracy evaluation and 217 physician-confirmed ambiguous cases for uncertainty-aware evaluation. It supports two complementary task formats: explicit four-way classification in a QA setting, and free-form conversational responses evaluated with a rubric-based judge anchored to the same framework. Across 12 frontier proprietary and open-weight models, we find substantial variation in clear-case acuity accuracy and error direction. Comparing task formats reveals a systematic tradeoff: conversational responses reduce over-triage but increase under-triage relative to QA, especially in higher-acuity cases. In ambiguous cases, no model closely matches the distribution of physician judgments, and model predictions are more concentrated than expert clinical uncertainty. We also compare expert and model adjudication on a subset of maximally ambiguous cases, using those cases to examine the role of clinical uncertainty in label disagreement. Together, these results position acuity identification as a distinct safety-critical capability and show that AcuityBench enables systematic comparison and stress-testing of how well models guide users to the right level of care in real-world health use.

Existing medical-agent benchmarks deliver imaging as pre-selected samples, never as an environment the agent must navigate. We introduce ABRA, a radiology-agent benchmark in which the agent operates an OHIF viewer and an Orthanc DICOM server through twenty-one function-calling tools that span slice navigation, windowing, series selection, pixel-coordinate annotation, and structured reporting. ABRA contains 655 programmatically generated tasks across three difficulty tiers and eight types (viewer control, metadata QA, vision probe, annotation, longitudinal comparison, BI-RADS reporting, and oracle variants of annotation and BI-RADS reporting), drawn from LIDC-IDRI, Duke Breast Cancer MRI, and NLST New-Lesion LongCT. Each episode is scored along Planning, Execution, and Outcome (Bluethgen et al., 2025) by task-type-specific automatic scorers. Ten current models, five closed-weight and five open-weight, reach at least 89% Execution on real annotation but only 0-25% Outcome; on the paired oracle variant where a simulated detector supplies the finding, Outcome on the same task reaches 69-100% across the models evaluated, localising the bottleneck to perception rather than tool orchestration. Code, task generators, and scorers are released at https://github.com/Luab/ABRA

Reasoning benchmarks measure clinical performance on clean inputs. We evaluate the step before reasoning: retrieval over real EHR notes, where negation, temporality, and family-versus-patient attribution can flip a correct answer to a wrong one. EpiKG carries an assertion label and a temporality tag with every fact in a patient knowledge graph, then routes retrieval by question intent. ClinicalBench is a 400-question test over 43 MIMIC-IV patients across 9 assertion-sensitive categories. A 7-condition ablation tests each piece of EpiKG across six LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-OSS 20B, MedGemma 27B, Gemma 4 31B, MedGemma 1.5 4B, Qwen 3.5 35B). Three physicians blindly adjudicated 100 paired items. The author-blind primary endpoint, leave-author-out paired exact McNemar on 50 unanimous-strict items rated by two external physicians, yields +22.0 percentage points (95 percent Newcombe CI [+5.1, +31.5], p=0.0192). The architectural novelty, intent-aware KG-RAG over a Contriever dense-RAG baseline (C2b to C4g_kw on the change-excluded n=362 endpoint), is +8.84 percentage points (paired McNemar p=1.79e-3); +12.43 percentage points under oracle intent. Sensitivities agree directionally: three-rater physician majority +24.0 percentage points (subject to single-author circularity); deterministic keyword reproducibility proxy +39.5 percentage points. Across the six models, the gain shrinks as the LLM-alone baseline rises (beta=-1.123, r=-0.921, p=0.009). With n=6 this looks more like regression to the mean than encoding substituting for model size. Physician adjudication identified 56 percent of auto-generated reference answers as defective, a methodological finding indicating that NLP-pipeline clinical-QA benchmarks require physician adjudication to be usable. ClinicalBench, the frozen evaluator, three-rater adjudication data, and the EpiKG output stack are publicly released.

Self-verification, re-invoking the same vision language model (VLM) in a fresh context to check its own generated answer, is increasingly used as a default safety layer for medical visual question answering (VQA). We argue that this practice is fundamentally unreliable. We introduce [METHOD NAME], a diagnostic framework for mapping the reliability boundary of medical VLM self-verification by decomposing verifier behavior into discrimination capability and agreement bias. Because the verifier and answer generator are capacity-coupled, the verifier can overly agree with the generator, creating a verification mirage: a regime with both high verifier error and high agreement bias, driven by false acceptance of incorrect answers. Evaluating six open-weight VLMs across five medical VQA datasets and seven medical tasks, we find that this boundary is strongly task-conditioned. Knowledge-intensive clinical tasks fall deepest into the mirage, simpler tasks are more resistant, and perceptual tasks lie in between. Verification also fails to provide an independent safety signal: logistic mixed-effects analysis shows that verifier error and agreement bias become more likely when the generator is wrong, while saliency analyses show that verifiers under-attend to image evidence relative to generators, a phenomenon we call the lazy verifier. Cross-verification reduces but does not eliminate the mirage. Moreover, when verification is reused in multi-turn actor-verifier loops, most initially wrong answers become locked in by false verification. Since our experiments use clean benchmarks, the observed reliability boundary likely underestimates failures in real clinical deployment.

Large vision-language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance in medical image understanding, but frequently generate clinically plausible yet incorrect statements, raising significant safety concerns. Existing medical hallucination benchmarks primarily focus on 2D imaging with one-shot diagnostic questions, offering limited insight into whether predictions are grounded in correct localization and abnormality identification, allowing critical reasoning errors to remain hidden behind seemingly correct diagnoses. We introduce Med-StepBench, the first large-scale benchmark for step-wise hallucination detection in 3D oncological PET/CT, comprising over 12,000 images and more than 1,000,000 image-statement pairs across volumetric and multi-view 2D data, which decomposes clinical reasoning into four expert-designed diagnostic stages. Using clinician-verified annotations, we perform the first step-level evaluation of general-purpose and medical VLMs, revealing systematic failure modes obscured by aggregate accuracy metrics. Furthermore, we show that current VLMs are highly susceptible to adversarial yet clinically plausible intermediate explanations, which significantly amplify hallucinations despite contradictory visual evidence. Together, our findings highlight fundamental limitations in grounding multi-step clinical reasoning and establish Med-StepBench as a rigorous benchmark for developing safer and more reliable medical VLMs.

Video large language models (Video-LLMs) have made strong progress in general video understanding, but their ability to maintain temporal object consistency remains underexplored. Existing benchmarks often emphasize event recognition, action understanding, or coarse temporal reasoning, while rarely testing whether models can preserve the identity, state, and continuity of the same object across occlusion, disappearance, reappearance, state transitions, and cross-object interactions. We introduce TOC-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating temporal object consistency in Video-LLMs. TOC-Bench is object-track grounded: each queried subject is linked to a per-frame trajectory and a structured temporal event timeline. To ensure that questions require temporally ordered visual evidence rather than language priors, single-frame shortcuts, or unordered frame cues, we design a three-layer temporal-necessity filtering protocol, which removes 60.7% of candidate QA pairs and retains 17,900 temporally dependent items across 10 diagnostic dimensions. From this pool, we construct a human-verified benchmark with 2,323 high-quality QA pairs over 1,951 videos. Experiments on representative Video-LLMs show that temporal object consistency remains a major unsolved challenge, with notable weaknesses in event counting, event ordering, identity-sensitive reasoning, and hallucination-aware verification, even when models perform well on general video understanding benchmarks. These results suggest that object-centric temporal coherence is a key bottleneck for current Video-LLMs, and that TOC-Bench provides a focused platform for diagnosing and improving object-aware temporal reasoning. The resource is available at https://github.com/cjzcjz666/toc_bench.git.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) and AI agents have made significant progress in learning to analyze and reason about clinical images. However, existing medical visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks collapse model capabilities into a single accuracy score, obscuring where and why models fail. We propose DeepTumorVQA, a hierarchical benchmark that follows the multi-stage evidence chain in tumor diagnosis and decomposes 3D CT reasoning into four stages: recognition, measurement, visual reasoning, and medical reasoning. Higher-level questions remain independently scorable, while their ground-truth evidence chains are defined over lower-level primitives. The benchmark contains 476K questions across 42 clinical subtypes on 9,262 3D CT volumes. In addition to a direct reasoning mode for VLMs, DeepTumorVQA provides tool-interaction environments for agent evaluation, where a model can call external tools, including segmentation models, measurement programs, and medical knowledge modules, before answering the question. Evaluating over 30 model configurations, we find that reliable quantitative measurement is the primary bottleneck, making later-stage visual and medical reasoning harder for VLMs, while tool augmentation substantially mitigates this issue. When tools are available, leveraging medical knowledge and tools to reason about medical images becomes a new challenge. We further show that ground-truth step-by-step tool-use traces from DeepTumorVQA can supervise agents and reduce tool-use and reasoning failures. This stage-wise progression from recognition to measurement to visual and medical reasoning provides a concrete roadmap for future medical VLM and AI agent studies. All data and code are released at https://github.com/Schuture/DeepTumorVQA.

Epilepsy diagnosis and treatment require evidence-intensive reasoning across heterogeneous clinical knowledge, including biosignal patterns, genetic mechanisms, pharmacogenomics, treatment strategies, and patient outcomes. In this work, we present \textsc{EpiGraph}, a large-scale epilepsy knowledge graph and benchmark for evaluating knowledge-augmented clinical reasoning. \textsc{EpiGraph} integrates 48,166 peer-reviewed papers and seven clinical resources into a heterogeneous graph containing 24,324 entities and 32,009 evidence-grounded triplets across five clinical layers. Built upon this graph, \textsc{EpiBench} defines five clinically motivated tasks spanning clinical decision-making, EEG report generation, pharmacogenomic precision medicine, treatment recommendation, and deep research planning. We evaluate six LLMs under both standard and Graph-RAG settings. Results show that integrating \textsc{EpiGraph} consistently improves performance across all tasks, with the largest gains observed in pharmacogenomic reasoning (+30--41%). Our findings demonstrate that structured epilepsy knowledge substantially enhances evidence-grounded clinical reasoning and provides a practical benchmark framework for evaluating knowledge-augmented LLMs in real-world neurological settings. Our code is available at: https://github.com/LabRAI/EEG-KG.

Medical vision--language models (VLMs) are usually evaluated on intact image--question pairs, but trustworthy clinical use requires a stronger property: a model must recognise when the evidential basis for an answer has failed. We study this through silent failures under perturbed evidence, where a vision-required medical question is paired with a false premise, wording perturbation, knowledge-only rewrite, or ROI-corrupted image, yet the model returns a fluent non-refusal answer. We introduce medvigil, a 300-case evaluation suite drawn from four public medical VQA sources, supervised end to end by four board-certified radiologists: every gold answer, refusal option, candidate-answer set, paraphrase, false-premise trap, ROI box, and clinical risk tier is clinician-authored. Two attending radiologists annotate every case in parallel, a senior radiologist consolidates the released manifest, and a separate fourth radiologist independent of construction answers every probe to provide the human reference baseline. The release contains 2556 MCQ probes, 240 counterfactual triplets, physician-adjudicated risk-tier and answerability flags, ROI boxes, and a paired open-ended variant. We report seven correctness-conditioned audit metrics that summarise into the medvigil Composite Score (MCS), and audit 16 vision-capable models plus two text-only baselines. The independent radiologist scores MCS 83.3 at silent-failure rate 5.8%, leaving a 14.1-point composite headroom above the strongest audited model (Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.2). The benchmark and evaluation harness are publicly released.

Real-world clinical diagnosis is a complex process in which the doctor is required to obtain information from both interaction with the patient and conducting medical exams. Additionally, the doctor needs to adapt to different patient personas, as well as noisy and incomplete information that can happen at any time during the process. However, existing benchmarks for medical LLMs and methods for automatic diagnosis largely simplify this process by reducing it to single-turn question answering, noise-free conversations, or sequential exam making, etc., ignoring the interactive and uncertain nature of clinical diagnosis. In this paper, we aim to address this gap by formalizing clinical diagnosis as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) with three action types: questioning the patient, ordering medical exams as tool calls, and issuing a diagnosis. We also introduce a systematic noise model comprising seven patient noise types and three exam noise types. Using our proposed environment, we train an effective diagnosis agent, \textbf{MedExAgent}, through a two-stage pipeline that first performs supervised finetuning on synthetic conversations structured after the Calgary-Cambridge model for clinical interviews, and then applies DAPO to optimize a composite reward capturing diagnostic accuracy, tool call quality, and exam cost including financial cost and patient discomfort. Through extensive experiments and ablation studies, we demonstrate that MedExAgent achieves diagnostic performance comparable to larger models while maintaining cost-efficient examination strategies.

When a chest X-ray shows consolidation but the question asks which finding is present, a medical vision-language model may answer "No consolidation." This is more than an incorrect choice: it is a polarity reversal that emits a clinical statement contradicting the image. We study this failure as negated-option attraction, where a model is drawn to a negated answer option even when it conflicts with both the visual evidence and the question. We introduce CXR-ContraBench (Chest X-Ray Contradiction Benchmark), a diagnostic benchmark spanning internal ReXVQA slices and external OpenI and CheXpert protocols. The benchmark centers on present-finding questions, where selecting "No X" despite visible X creates the main clinical risk, and uses absent-finding questions as secondary tests of whether models copy negated wording. Across CheXpert protocols, the failure is substantial and persistent. On a strict direct presence probe, MedGemma and Qwen2.5-VL reach only 31.49% and 30.21% accuracy, respectively; on a matched 135,754-record CheXpert training-split protocol, both models select negated options on over 62% of presence questions. Chain-of-thought prompting reduces some presence-side reversals but does not eliminate them and can amplify absence-side contradictions. Finally, QCCV-Neg (Question-Conditioned Consistency Verifier for Negation) deterministically repairs the measured polarity-confused subset without retraining, raising MedGemma and Qwen2.5-VL to 96.60% and 95.32% accuracy on the direct presence probe. These results show that standard accuracy can hide a clinically meaningful inference-time polarity failure. Source code and benchmark construction scripts are available at https://github.com/fangzr/cxr-contrabench-code.

Background: Existing MRI LLM benchmarks rely mainly on review-book multiple-choice questions, where top proprietary models already score highly, limiting discrimination. No systematic benchmark has evaluated vendor-specific scanner operational knowledge central to research MRI practice. Purpose: We developed MRI-Eval, a tiered benchmark for relative model comparison on MRI physics and GE scanner operations knowledge using primary multiple-choice questions (MCQ), with stem-only and primed diagnostic conditions as complementary analyses. Methods: MRI-Eval includes 1365 scored items across nine categories and three difficulty tiers from textbooks, GE scanner manuals, programming course materials, and expert-generated questions. Five model families were evaluated (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama 3.3 70B). MCQ was primary; stem-only removed options and used an independent LLM judge; primed stem-only tested responses to incorrect user claims. Results: Overall MCQ accuracy was 93.2% to 97.1%. GE scanner operations was the lowest category for every model (88.2% to 94.6%). In stem-only, frontier-model accuracy fell to 58.4% to 61.1%, and Llama 3.3 70B fell to 37.1%; GE scanner operations stem-only accuracy was 13.8% to 29.8%. Conclusion: High MCQ performance can mask weak free-text recall, especially for vendor-specific operational knowledge. MRI-Eval is most informative as a relative comparison benchmark rather than an absolute competency measure and supports caution in using raw LLM outputs for GE-specific protocol guidance.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving. When the available information is insufficient to support a reliable answer, models should request clarification or abstain rather than provide unsupported responses. Existing medical benchmarks, however, typically assume that complete information is available upfront. We introduce Safe-Psych, a sequential benchmark for evaluating how LLMs handle evolving diagnostic uncertainty in clinical psychiatry. Safe-Psych contains over 1,000 real-world psychiatric clinical notes segmented to simulate incremental evidence disclosure, with psychiatrist-derived action labels at each stage: DIAGNOSE, CLARIFY, or ABSTAIN. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art LLMs in full-information and sequential settings. Our findings show that capability does not ensure calibration: even strong models struggle under incomplete clinical information, with under-abstention exceeding 60% for most models and safety-aware prompting reducing premature commitment only by shifting errors toward excessive abstention. In sequential evaluation, models frequently diagnose before sufficient evidence is available and rarely seek clarification unless explicitly prompted; these premature diagnoses are less accurate than on-time diagnoses. Overall, Safe-Psych reveals a limitation across the evaluated models: recognizing when clinical evidence is incomplete and additional information is needed. We release Safe-Psych to support research on improving LLM safety in healthcare.

Foundation models with visual question answering capabilities for digital pathology are emerging. Such unprecedented technology requires independent benchmarking to assess its potential in assisting pathologists in routine diagnostics. We created DALPHIN, the first multicentric open benchmark for pathology AI copilots, comprising 1236 images from 300 cases, spanning 130 rare to common diagnoses, 6 countries, and 14 subspecialties. The DALPHIN design and dataset are introduced alongside a human performance benchmark of 31 pathologists from 10 countries with varying expertise. We report results for two general-purpose (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro) and one pathology-specific copilot (PathChat+) for sequential and independent answer generation. We observed no statistically significant difference from expert-level performance in four of six tasks for PathChat, 2/6 tasks for Gemini, and 1/6 tasks for GPT. DALPHIN is publicly released with sequestered, indirectly accessible ground truth to foster robust and enduring benchmarking. Data, methods, and the evaluation platform are accessible through dalphin.grand-challenge.org.

We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.

Deep learning models for drug--target interaction (DTI) prediction often achieve strong benchmark performance without necessarily relying on mechanistically meaningful molecular features, a limitation that standard accuracy-based evaluation cannot detect. We introduce ISAAC (Intervention-based Structural Auditing Approach for Causal Reasoning), a post-hoc framework that evaluates prior-relative structural sensitivity by probing frozen models through matched mechanistic and spurious input-level interventions, independently of predictive accuracy. Applied to three sequence-based DTI architectures on the Davis benchmark, ISAAC reveals approximately 25% relative differences in reasoning scores across models with comparable AUROC (within around 3%), stable across training and intervention seeds and two distinct perturbation operators. These discrepancies, undetectable under conventional accuracy metrics, motivate the use of post-hoc structural auditing as a complement to standard performance evaluation in scientific machine learning for molecular modeling.

System-level diagrams encode the architectural blueprint of chip design, specifying module functions, dataflows, and interface protocols. However, non-standardized symbols and the scarcity of structured training data hinder existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) from recognizing these diagrams. To address this gap, we introduce DiagramNet, the first multimodal dataset for system-level diagrams, comprising 10,977 connection annotations and 15,515 chain-of-thought QA pairs across four tasks: Listing, Localization, Connection, and Circuit QA. Building on this dataset, we propose a progressive training pipeline together with a decoupled multi-agent workflow that decomposes complex visual reasoning into Perception, Reasoning, and Knowledge stages. On the DiagramNet benchmark, integrating our 3B-parameter model with the proposed workflow surpasses the 2025 EDA Elite Challenge winner and outperforms GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.5-Pro by over 2x in end-to-end evaluation. Notably, the workflow generalizes beyond our model, boosting Task 1 performance by 128.7x for Gemini-2.5-Pro and 12.4x for GPT-5. Furthermore, with only 60 images for detector adaptation, the method transfers effectively to AMSBench, achieving zero-shot connectivity reasoning on par with GPT-5 and Claude-Sonnet-4 while surpassing the AMS state-of-the-art method Netlistify.

Using multimodal foundation models to analyze table images is a high-value yet challenging application in consumer and enterprise scenarios. Despite its importance, current evaluations rely largely on structured-text tables or clean rendered images, leaving the visual complexity of in-the-wild table images underexplored. Such images feature varied layouts and diverse domains that demand sophisticated structural perception and numerical reasoning. To bridge this gap, we introduce WildTableBench, the first question-answering benchmark for naturally occurring table images from real-world settings. WildTableBench comprises 402 high-information-density table images collected from online forums and websites across diverse domains, together with 928 manually annotated and verified questions spanning 17 subtypes across five categories. We evaluate 21 frontier proprietary and open-source multimodal foundation models on this benchmark. Only one model exceeds 50% accuracy, while all remaining models range from 4.1% to 49.9%. We further conduct diagnostic analyses to characterize model failures and reveal persistent weaknesses in structural perception and reasoning. These results and analyses provide useful insights into current model capabilities and establish WildTableBench as a valuable diagnostic benchmark for table image understanding. Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/jzhuang/WildTableBench Code: https://github.com/hjzhe/WildTableBench Leaderboard: https://hjzhe.github.io/WildTableBench

Medical audio data is difficult to collect due to privacy regulations and high annotation costs arising from domain expertise. Thus, existing benchmarks tend to underrepresent complex medical audio scenarios. To address this challenge, we present MedMosaic, a medical audio question-answering dataset designed to benchmark language and audio reasoning models under realistic clinical constraints. MedMosaic features a diverse range of medical audio types, including condition-related physiological sounds, carefully constructed synthetic voices to mimic speech with artifacts as well as real short and long length clinical conversations to model varying context lengths. The dataset also features a total of 46,701 question-answer pairs, spanning categories such as multiple-choice, sequential multi-turn, and open-ended question-answers, enabling systematic evaluation of multi-hop reasoning and answer generation capabilities. Benchmarking 13 audio and multimodal reasoning models reveals that reasoning remains challenging for all evaluated systems, with substantial performance variation across question types. In particular, even state-of-the-art model like Gemini-2.5-pro can only achieve 68.1% accuracy approximately. These findings underscore persistent limitations in medical reasoning and highlight the need for more robust, domain-specific multimodal reasoning models. A sample of benchmark data is available here: https://shorturl.at/Lyp33

To provide a structured and interpretable assessment, we decompose the image-based diagnosis into components following the Toulmin model of argumentation. This model consists of a claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. Consider a claim generated by a machine learning (ML) model for retinal diagnosis. Rather than accepting this claim at face value, one could either apply explainable AI (XAI) methods or adopt an argumentation-based approach. In our framework, a model specialized in biomarker extraction from images provides the grounds. The warrant-linking the grounds to the claim - is analyzed by an agent equipped with medical knowledge; in our architecture, this role is fulfilled by a MedGemma agent. The qualifier is determined based on the overall quantitative evaluation of both the warrant and grounds models. Finally, a rebuttal is constructed using image similarity measures computed with MedSigLip. All these components are presented to the human expert, enabling a more informed and critical assessment of the ML-generated diagnosis.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promise on publicly available dermatology benchmarks. However, benchmark performance may not generalize to real-world dermatologic decision-making. To quantify this benchmark-to-bedside gap, we evaluated four open-weight MLLMs (InternVL-Chat v1.5, LLaVA-Med v1.5, SkinGPT4 and MedGemma-4B-Instruct) and one commercial MLLM (GPT-4.1) across three publicly available dermatology datasets and a retrospective multi-site hospital-based dermatology consultation cohort comprising 5,811 cases and 46,405 clinical images. Models were evaluated on two clinically relevant tasks: differential diagnosis generation and severity-based triage. Diagnostic performance was modest on public datasets and declined substantially in the real-world cohort. On public benchmarks, top-3 diagnostic accuracy reached 26.55% for the best open-weight model and 42.25% for GPT-4.1. On real-world consultation cases using images alone, top-3 diagnostic accuracy fell to 1.50%-13.35% among open-weight models and 24.65% for GPT-4.1. Incorporating clinical context improved performance across all models, increasing top-3 diagnostic accuracy up to 28.75% among open-weight models and 38.93% for GPT-4.1. However, model outputs were highly sensitive to incomplete or erroneous consultation context. For severity-based triage, models achieved moderate sensitivity (above 60%), suggesting potential utility for screening but insufficient reliability for clinical deployment. These findings demonstrate that benchmark performance substantially overestimates the real-world clinical capability of current dermatology MLLMs.

Diagram question answering (Diagram QA) requires reasoning-level attribution that links each question-answer pair to all visual regions needed to derive the answer, rather than only the region containing the final response. Creating such structured evidence across diagrams, charts, maps, circuits, and infographics is time-consuming, and existing annotation tools tightly couple their interfaces to dataset-specific formats. We present DIAGRAMS, a lightweight, schema-driven review framework that decouples interface logic from dataset-specific JSON structures through an internal meta-schema and dataset adapters. Given an image and QA pair with optional candidate regions, the system performs QA-conditioned evidence selection and proposes the regions required for reasoning. When QA pairs or candidate regions are missing, it generates them and supports human verification and refinement. Across six Diagram QA datasets, model-suggested evidence achieves 85.39% precision and 75.30% recall against reviewer-final selections (micro-averaged). These results indicate that the review-first framework reduces manual region creation while maintaining high agreement with final reasoning-level attributions. We release a public demo and installable package to support dataset auditing, grounded supervision creation, and grounded evaluation.

Diagram question answering (DQA) requires models to interpret structured visual representations such as charts, maps, infographics, circuit schematics, and scientific diagrams. Recent vision-language models (VLMs) often achieve high answer accuracy on these tasks, yet correct answers do not guarantee that models ground their reasoning in the diagram regions that support the prediction. Models may instead rely on textual correlations or dataset artifacts without identifying the visual evidence required to verify the answer. This limitation prevents reliable evaluation of diagram reasoning and reduces interpretability. We introduce DRAGON, a benchmark for evaluating evidence-grounded visual reasoning in diagrams. Given a diagram, a question, and the correct answer, a model must predict bounding boxes that correspond to the visual elements required to justify the answer. These evidence regions may include answer-bearing components, textual labels, legends, axes, connectors, and other supporting structures involved in the reasoning process. The DRAGON dataset contains 11,664 annotated question instances collected from six diagram QA datasets: ChartQA, Circuit-VQA, InfographicsVQA, MapIQ, MapWise, and AI2D. We release a 2,445-instance benchmark test set with human-verified reasoning evidence annotations and a standardized evaluation framework. We evaluate eight recent VLMs and analyze their ability to localize reasoning evidence across diverse diagram domains. DRAGON enables systematic evaluation of diagram reasoning and supports future research on models that ground their predictions in visual evidence.

Diagnostic prediction and clinical reasoning are critical tasks in healthcare applications. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in commonsense reasoning, they still struggle with diagnostic reasoning due to limited domain knowledge. Existing approaches often rely on internal model knowledge or static knowledge bases, resulting in knowledge insufficiency and limited adaptability, which hinder their capacity to perform diagnostic reasoning. Moreover, these methods focus solely on the accuracy of final predictions, overlooking alignment with standard clinical reasoning trajectories. To this end, we propose MultiDx, a two-stage diagnostic reasoning framework that performs differential diagnosis by analyzing evidence collected from multiple knowledge sources. Specifically, it first generates suspected diagnoses and reasoning paths by leveraging knowledge from web search, SOAP-formatted case, and clinical case database. Then it integrates multi-perspective evidence through matching, voting, and differential diagnosis to generate the final prediction.~Extensive experiments on two public benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

The evaluation of generated reports remains a critical challenge in Computed Tomography (CT) report generation, due to the large volume of text, the diversity and complexity of findings, and the presence of fine-grained, disease-oriented attributes. Conventional evaluation metrics offer only coarse measures of lexical overlap or entity matching and fail to reflect the granular diagnostic accuracy required for clinical use. To address this gap, we propose CT-FineBench, a benchmark built from CT-RATE and Merlin to evaluate the fine-grained factual consistency of CT reports, constructed from CT-RATE and Merlin. Our benchmark is constructed through a meticulous, Question-Answering (QA) based process: first, we identify and structure key, finding-specific clinical attributes (like location, size, margin). Second, we systematically transform these attributes into a QA dataset, where questions probe for specific clinical details grounded in gold-standard reports. The evaluation protocol for CT-FineBench involves using this QA dataset to query a machine-generated report and scoring the correctness of the answers. This allows for a comprehensive, interpretable, and clinically-relevant assessment, moving beyond superficial lexical overlap to pinpoint specific clinical errors. Experiments show that CT-FineBench correlates better with expert clinical assessment and is substantially more sensitive to fine-grained factual errors than prior metrics.

Crop disease diagnosis from field photographs faces two recurring problems: models that score well on benchmarks frequently hallucinate species names, and when predictions are correct, the reasoning behind them is typically inaccessible to the practitioner. This paper describes Agri-CPJ (Caption-Prompt-Judge), a training-free few-shot framework in which a large vision-language model first generates a structured morphological caption, iteratively refined through multi-dimensional quality gating, before any diagnostic question is answered. Two candidate responses are then generated from complementary viewpoints, and an LLM judge selects the stronger one based on domain-specific criteria. Caption refinement is the component with the largest individual impact: ablations confirm that skipping it consistently degrades downstream accuracy across both models tested. On CDDMBench, pairing GPT-5-Nano with GPT-5-mini-generated captions yields \textbf{+22.7} pp in disease classification and \textbf{+19.5} points in QA score over no-caption baselines. Evaluated without modification on AgMMU-MCQs, GPT-5-Nano reached 77.84% and Qwen-VL-Chat reached 64.54%, placing them at or above most open-source models of comparable scale despite the format shift from open-ended to multiple-choice. The structured caption and judge rationale together constitute a readable audit trail: a practitioner who disagrees with a diagnosis can identify the specific caption observation that was incorrect. Code and data are publicly available https://github.com/CPJ-Agricultural/CPJ-Agricultural-Diagnosis

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical diagnosis, but real-world deployment remains challenging due to high-stakes clinical decisions and imperfect reasoning reliability. As a result, careful inspection of model behavior is essential for assessing whether diagnostic reasoning is reliable and clinically grounded. However, debugging medical LLMs remains difficult. First, developers often lack sufficient medical domain expertise to interpret model errors in clinically meaningful terms. Second, models can fail across a large and diverse set of instances involving different input types, tasks, and reasoning steps, making it challenging for developers to prioritize which errors deserve focused inspection. Third, developers struggle to identify recurring error patterns across cases, as existing debugging practices are largely instance-centric and rely on manual inspection of isolated failures. To address these challenges, we present VeriLLMed, a visual analytics system that integrates external biomedical knowledge to audit and debug medical LLM diagnostic reasoning. VeriLLMed transforms model outputs into comparable reasoning paths, constructs knowledge graph-grounded reference paths, and identifies three recurring classes of diagnosis errors: relation errors, branch errors, and missing errors. Case studies and expert evaluation demonstrate that VeriLLMed helps developers identify clinically implausible reasoning and generate actionable insights that can inform the improvement of medical LLMs.

In many cyber-physical systems, especially in critical applications such as aeroplanes, data to train anomaly detection and diagnosis algorithms is lacking due to data protection issues and partial observability. To combat this inherent lack of data, we introduce a high-fidelity, physics-informed co-simulation of a common aircraft main-fuel-pump system modelled in \textsc{MATLAB/Simulink Simscape Fluids}. We also describe its generated time-series data with health and fault mode annotations. To show feasibility of our benchmark, we apply an unsupervised Recurrent Variational Autoencoder (RNN-VAE) for anomaly detection and a SOM-VAE for operating mode discretization, trained to separate healthy and faulty conditions.

Vision evaluations are typically done through multi-step processes. In most contemporary fields, experts analyze images using structured, evidence-based adaptive questioning. In plant pathology, botanists inspect leaf images, identify visual cues, infer diagnostic intent, and probe further with targeted questions that adapt to species, symptoms, and severity. This structured probing is crucial for accurate disease diagnosis and treatment formulation. Yet current vision-language models are evaluated on single-turn question answering. To address this gap, we introduce PlantInquiryVQA, a benchmark for studying multi-step, intent-driven visual reasoning in botanical diagnosis. We formalize a Chain of Inquiry framework modeling diagnostic trajectories as ordered question-answer sequences conditioned on grounded visual cues and explicit epistemic intent. We release a dataset of 24,950 expert-curated plant images and 138,068 question-answer pairs annotated with visual grounding, severity labels, and domain-specific reasoning templates. Evaluations on top-tier Multimodal Large Language Models reveal that while they describe visual symptoms adequately, they struggle with safe clinical reasoning and accurate diagnosis. Importantly, structured question-guided inquiry significantly improves diagnostic correctness, reduces hallucination, and increases reasoning efficiency. We hope PlantInquiryVQA serves as a foundational benchmark in advancing research to train diagnostic agents to reason like expert botanists rather than static classifiers.

Despite significant progress in Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs), their clinical reasoning capacity for multi-modal diagnosis remains largely unexamined. Current benchmarks, mostly single-modality data, can't evaluate progressive reasoning and cross-modal integration essential for clinical practice. We introduce the Cross-Modality Progressive Clinical Reasoning (X-PCR) benchmark, the first comprehensive evaluation of MLLMs through a complete ophthalmology diagnostic workflow, with two reasoning tasks: 1) a six-stage progressive reasoning chain spanning image quality assessment to clinical decision-making, and 2) a cross-modality reasoning task integrating six imaging modalities. The benchmark comprises 26,415 images and 177,868 expert-verified VQA pairs curated from 51 public datasets, covering 52 ophthalmic diseases. Evaluation of 21 MLLMs reveals critical gaps in progressive reasoning and cross-modal integration. Dataset and code: https://github.com/CVI-SZU/X-PCR.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used in settings where sensitivity to low-level image degradations matters, including content moderation, image restoration, and quality monitoring. Yet their ability to recognize distortion type and severity remains poorly understood. We present DistortBench, a diagnostic benchmark for no-reference distortion perception in VLMs. DistortBench contains 13,500 four-choice questions covering 27 distortion types, six perceptual categories, and five severity levels: 25 distortions inherit KADID-10k calibrations, while two added rotation distortions use monotonic angle-based levels. We evaluate 18 VLMs, including 17 open-weight models from five families and one proprietary model. Despite strong performance on high-level vision-language tasks, the best model reaches only 61.9% accuracy, just below the human majority-vote baseline of 65.7% (average individual: 60.2%), indicating that low-level perceptual understanding remains a major weakness of current VLMs. Our analysis further reveals weak and non-monotonic scaling with model size, performance drops in most base--thinking pairs, and distinct severity-response patterns across model families. We hope DistortBench will serve as a useful benchmark for measuring and improving low-level visual perception in VLMs.

Process-Level Reward Models (PRMs) are essential for guiding complex reasoning in large language models, yet existing PRM benchmarks cover only general domains such as mathematics, failing to address medical reasoning -- which is uniquely characterized by safety criticality, knowledge intensity, and diverse error patterns. Without a reliable medical PRM evaluation framework, we cannot quantify models' error detection capabilities in clinical reasoning, leaving their safety in real-world healthcare applications unverified. We propose MedPRMBench, the first process-level reward model benchmark for the medical domain. Built through a three-phase pipeline based on Clinical Reasoning Blueprints (CRBs), MedPRMBench systematically generates high-quality evaluation data from seven medical QA sources, covering 14 fine-grained error types across three categories (Simplicity, Soundness, and Sensitivity) with the first 4-level severity grading system to quantify clinical impact. The benchmark comprises 6{,}500 questions with 13{,}000 reasoning chains and 113{,}910 step-level labels, plus 6{,}879 questions for training. Our medical PRM baseline achieves an 87.1% overall PRMScore -- substantially surpassing all baselines -- and serves as a plug-and-play verifier that improves downstream medical QA accuracy by 3.2--6.7 percentage points. Systematic evaluation spanning proprietary frontier models, open-source reasoning models, and medical-specialized models reveals critical weaknesses in current models' medical reasoning error detection capabilities, providing clear directions for future PRM improvement.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for diagnostic support, but few evaluations use real-world multimodal inpatient data, particularly in low and middle-income country (LMIC) public hospitals. Methods: We conducted VALID, a retrospective evaluation of 539 multimodal inpatient cases from a tertiary public hospital in South Africa. Inputs included radiology imaging (CT, MRI, CXR) and reports, laboratory results, clinical notes, and vital signs. Expert panels adjudicated 300 cases (balanced and discordant subsets) to establish ground truth diagnoses, differentials, and reasoning. Ten multimodal LLMs generated zero-shot outputs. A calibrated three-model LLM Jury scored all outputs and routine ward diagnoses across diagnostic accuracy, differential quality, reasoning, and patient safety (>10,000 evaluations). Primary outcomes were composite scores ($S_3$, $S_4$) and win rates. Results: (i) LLM performance was tightly clustered (<15% variation) despite large cost differences; low-cost models performed comparably to top models. (ii) All LLMs significantly outperformed routine ward diagnoses on average diagnostic and safety scores. (iii) Top performance was achieved by GPT-5.1, followed by Gemini models. (vi) Adding radiology reports improved performance by 6%. (v) Diagnostic and reasoning scores were highly correlated ($ρ= 0.85$). (vi) Output rates varied (65-100%) due to input constraints. Results were robust across subsets and evaluation design. Conclusions: Across a real-world LMIC dataset, multimodal LLMs showed similar diagnostic performance despite large cost differences and outperformed routine care on average safety metrics. Affordability, robustness, and deployment constraints may outweigh marginal performance differences in LMIC settings.

Machine learning in high-stakes domains such as healthcare requires not only strong predictive performance but also reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) to support human oversight. Multi-label text classification (MLTC) is a central task in this domain, yet remains challenging due to label imbalances, dependencies, and combinatorial complexity. Existing MLTC benchmarks are increasingly saturated and may be affected by training data contamination, making it difficult to distinguish genuine reasoning capabilities from memorization. We introduce MADE, a living MLTC benchmark derived from {m}edical device {ad}verse {e}vent reports and continuously updated with newly published reports to prevent contamination. MADE features a long-tailed distribution of hierarchical labels and enables reproducible evaluation with strict temporal splits. We establish baselines across more than 20 encoder- and decoder-only models under fine-tuning and few-shot settings (instruction-tuned/reasoning variants, local/API-accessible). We systematically assess entropy-/consistency-based and self-verbalized UQ methods. Results show clear trade-offs: smaller discriminatively fine-tuned decoders achieve the strongest head-to-tail accuracy while maintaining competitive UQ; generative fine-tuning delivers the most reliable UQ; large reasoning models improve performance on rare labels yet exhibit surprisingly weak UQ; and self-verbalized confidence is not a reliable proxy for uncertainty. Our work is publicly available at https://hhi.fraunhofer.de/aml-demonstrator/made-benchmark.

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.

Medical Vision-Language Models (Med-VLMs) have achieved expert-level proficiency in interpreting diagnostic imaging. However, current models are predominantly trained on professional literature, limiting their ability to communicate findings in the lay register required for patient-centered care. While text-centric research has actively developed resources for simplifying medical jargon, there is a critical absence of large-scale multimodal benchmarks designed to facilitate lay-accessible medical image understanding. To bridge this resource gap, we introduce MedLayBench-V, the first large-scale multimodal benchmark dedicated to expert-lay semantic alignment. Unlike naive simplification approaches that risk hallucination, our dataset is constructed via a Structured Concept-Grounded Refinement (SCGR) pipeline. This method enforces strict semantic equivalence by integrating Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs) with micro-level entity constraints. MedLayBench-V provides a verified foundation for training and evaluating next-generation Med-VLMs capable of bridging the communication divide between clinical experts and patients.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models achieve strong performance in robotic manipulation by leveraging pre-trained vision-language backbones. However, in downstream robotic settings, they are typically fine-tuned with limited data, leading to overfitting to specific instruction formulations and leaving robustness to paraphrased instructions underexplored. To study this gap, we introduce LIBERO-Para, a controlled benchmark that independently varies action expressions and object references for fine-grained analysis of linguistic generalization. Across seven VLA configurations (0.6B-7.5B), we observe consistent performance degradation of 22-52 pp under paraphrasing. This degradation is primarily driven by object-level lexical variation: even simple synonym substitutions cause large drops, indicating reliance on surface-level matching rather than semantic grounding. Moreover, 80-96% of failures arise from planning-level trajectory divergence rather than execution errors, showing that paraphrasing disrupts task identification. Binary success rate treats all paraphrases equally, obscuring whether models perform consistently across difficulty levels or rely on easier cases. To address this, we propose PRIDE, a metric that quantifies paraphrase difficulty using semantic and syntactic factors. Our benchmark and corresponding code are available at: https://github.com/cau-hai-lab/LIBERO-Para

As conversational multimodal AI tools are increasingly adopted to process patient data for health assessment, robust benchmarks are needed to measure progress and expose failure modes under realistic conditions. Despite the importance of respiratory audio for mobile health screening, respiratory audio question answering remains underexplored, with existing studies evaluated narrowly and lacking real-world heterogeneity across modalities, devices, and question types. We hence introduce the \textbf{Respiratory-Audio Question-Answering (RA-QA) benchmark}, including a standardized data generation pipeline, a comprehensive multimodal QA collection, and a unified evaluation protocol. RA-QA harmonizes public RA datasets into a collection of 9 million format-diverse QA pairs covering diagnostic and contextual attributes. We benchmark general audio-language models as well as domain-specific architectures, establishing reproducible reference points and showing how current approaches fail under heterogeneity.

Conversational diagnosis requires multi-turn history-taking, where an agent asks clarifying questions to refine differential diagnoses under incomplete information. Existing approaches often rely on the parametric knowledge of a model or assume that patients provide rich and concrete information, which is unrealistic. To address these limitations, we propose a conversational diagnosis system that explores a diagnostic knowledge graph to reason in two steps: (i) generating diagnostic hypotheses from the dialogue context, and (ii) verifying hypotheses through clarifying questions, which are repeated until a final diagnosis is reached. Since evaluating the system requires a realistic patient simulator that responds to the system's questions, we adopt PatientSim, a persona-driven patient simulator, together with patient profiles from MIMIC-IV. We further adapt it with low-specificity symptom reporting to reflect how real-world patients describe symptoms vaguely during early clinical encounters. Experiments show improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency over strong baselines, and physician evaluations support the realism of our simulator and the clinical utility of the generated clarifying questions. Our code will be released upon publication.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models by encouraging step-by-step intermediate reasoning, and recent advances have extended this paradigm to Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In the medical domain, where diagnostic decisions depend on nuanced visual cues and sequential reasoning, CoT aligns naturally with clinical thinking processes. However, current benchmarks for medical image understanding generally focus on the final answer while ignoring the reasoning path. Such opaque reasoning processes lack reliable bases for judgment, making it difficult to assist doctors in diagnosis. To address this gap, we introduce a new M3CoTBench benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency of CoT reasoning in medical image understanding. M3CoTBench features 1) a diverse, multi-level difficulty dataset covering 24 examination types, 2) 13 varying-difficulty tasks, 3) a suite of CoT-specific evaluation metrics (correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency) tailored to clinical reasoning, and 4) a performance analysis of multiple MLLMs. M3CoTBench systematically evaluates CoT reasoning across diverse medical imaging tasks, revealing current limitations of MLLMs in generating reliable and clinically interpretable reasoning, and aims to foster the development of transparent, trustworthy, and diagnostically accurate AI systems for healthcare. Project page at https://juntaojianggavin.github.io/projects/M3CoTBench/.

Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level. Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference. We present EpiQAL, to our knowledge the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering over research literature, comprising three subsets built from open-access articles across diverse diseases. The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening. Experiments on fifteen models spanning open-source and proprietary systems reveal that current LLMs show limited performance on epidemiological reasoning, with multi-step inference posing the greatest challenge. Model rankings shift across subsets, and scale alone does not predict success. Chain-of-Thought prompting benefits multi-step inference but yields mixed results elsewhere. EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows. However, existing benchmarks primarily assess performance on common anatomical presentations and fail to capture the challenges posed by rare variants. To address this gap, we introduce AdversarialAnatomyBench, the first benchmark comprising naturally occurring rare anatomical variants across diverse imaging modalities and anatomical regions. We call such variants that violate learned priors about "typical" human anatomy natural adversarial anatomy. Benchmarking 25 state-of-the-art VLMs with AdversarialAnatomyBench yielded three key insights. First, when queried with basic medical perception tasks, mean accuracy dropped from 71% on typical to 28% on atypical anatomy. Even the best-performing models, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Llama 4 Maverick, showed performance drops of 41-51%. Second, model errors closely mirrored expected anatomical biases. Third, neither model scaling nor interventions, including bias-aware prompting and test-time reasoning, resolved these issues. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current VLMs: their poor generalization to rare anatomical presentations. AdversarialAnatomyBench provides a foundation for systematically measuring and mitigating anatomical bias in multimodal medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

Medical report understanding from real-world document images is essential for generating patient-facing explanations and enabling structured information exchange in clinical systems. Existing VLMs and LLMs have shown strong performance on document understanding, but structured understanding of medical reports remains insufficiently benchmarked. Therefore, we introduce MedRepBench, a benchmark with 1,925 de-identified Chinese medical report images spanning diverse departments, patient demographics, and acquisition formats. In MedRepBench, we mainly focus on report-grounded interpretation rather than evaluating diagnostic reasoning, treatment recommendation, or the integration of patient history. The interpretation is defined as structured extraction of report fields (e.g., item, value, unit, reference range, abnormal flag) plus a patient-facing explanation grounded strictly in the report content. The benchmark primarily evaluates end-to-end VLMs, and also includes a controlled text-only setting (high-quality OCR + LLM) to approximate an upper bound when character recognition errors are minimized. Our evaluation framework provides two complementary protocols: (1) an objective protocol measuring field-level recall of structured items, and (2) an automated subjective protocol that uses an LLM-based judge to score factuality, interpretability, and reasoning quality under a fixed prompt. Using the objective metric as a reward signal, we also provide a lightweight GRPO-based alignment baseline for a mid-sized VLM, which improves field-level recall by up to 6%. Finally, we analyze practical limitations of OCR+LLM pipelines, including layout-related errors and additional system latency, showing the need for robust end-to-end vision-based medical report understanding. The dataset and evaluation resources are publicly available on https://huggingface.co/datasets/MedRepBench/MedRepBench.

Endoscopic diagnosis is an iterative process in which clinicians acquire, compare, and verify local visual evidence before reaching a conclusion. Current AI systems do not adequately support this process because fine-grained evidence acquisition and multi-step reasoning remain weakly coupled, complicating reconciliation of image-derived findings with their textual interpretations. This gives rise to two failure modes, hallucinated evidence and uncorrected error accumulation, that undermine diagnostic reliability. We propose EndoCogniAgent, a closed-loop agentic framework that formulates endoscopic diagnosis as a controlled state update process for integrating complementary visual and textual evidence. At each reasoning round, a central planner selects an evidence acquisition action, specialized expert tools extract spatial and semantic observations as structured textual evidence, and a self-consistency validation mechanism examines this evidence along two dimensions, knowledge consistency against the input image and temporal consistency with prior validated findings, before updating the diagnostic state. Validated observations are admitted into the evolving state to condition subsequent planning, while insufficiently supported or conflicting findings are retained with corrective feedback that redirects the planner toward additional verification. We further introduce EndoAgentBench, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 6,132 question-answer pairs from 11 endoscopic datasets, to evaluate diagnostic agents across a comprehensive diagnostic chain, from fine-grained visual perception to high-level diagnostic reasoning. EndoCogniAgent achieves 85.23% overall accuracy on perception tasks and 71.13% clinical acceptance rate on reasoning tasks. Blinded clinician evaluation further shows consistent improvements in diagnostic response quality over the evaluated baselines.

Existing evaluations of tabular synthesis models rely primarily on low-order statistics and downstream task performance, leaving multivariate causal relationships that go beyond pairwise correlations largely unmeasured. We argue that a systematic evaluation on high-order structural information is a crucial first step in addressing this issue in tabular data synthesis. In this paper, we present high-order structural causal information as a natural form of prior knowledge and introduce a benchmark framework to evaluate tabular synthesis models. This framework allows us to generate benchmark datasets through a flexible range of data generation processes, allowing for the training of tabular synthesis models using these datasets for further evaluation. We propose multiple benchmark tasks, high-order metrics, and causal inference tasks as downstream tasks for evaluating the quality of synthetic data generated by the trained models. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the benchmark framework in evaluating the model's ability to capture high-order structural causal information. Furthermore, our benchmarking results provide an initial assessment of state-of-the-art tabular synthesis models. These results reveal significant gaps between ideal and actual performance and highlight how baseline methods differ. We position the framework as a controlled diagnostic benchmark for causal fidelity, complementing existing low-order and downstream evaluations. We open source the benchmark framework, including both code and data along with documentation, to support further research in this area.

There is growing interest in using machine learning (ML) to support clinical diagnosis, but most approaches rely on static, fully observed datasets and fail to reflect the sequential, resource-aware reasoning clinicians use in practice. Diagnosis remains complex and error prone, especially in high-pressure or resource-limited settings, underscoring the need for frameworks that help clinicians make timely and cost-effective decisions. We propose ACTMED (Adaptive Clinical Test selection via Model-based Experimental Design), a diagnostic framework that integrates Bayesian Experimental Design (BED) with large language models (LLMs) to better emulate real-world diagnostic reasoning. At each step, ACTMED selects the test expected to yield the greatest reduction in diagnostic uncertainty for a given patient. LLMs act as flexible simulators, generating plausible patient state distributions and supporting belief updates without requiring structured, task-specific training data. Clinicians can remain in the loop; reviewing test suggestions, interpreting intermediate outputs, and applying clinical judgment throughout. We evaluate ACTMED on real-world datasets and show it can optimize test selection to improve diagnostic accuracy, interpretability, and resource use. This represents a step toward transparent, adaptive, and clinician-aligned diagnostic systems that generalize across settings with reduced reliance on domain-specific data.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly expected to support clinical workflows through diagnostic text and relevant medical images. However, current medical visual benchmarks have three recurring limitations: query-image misalignment from queries weakly grounded in specific image instances, closed-ended formats that narrow answer space and encourage shortcut-based prediction, and text-centric output paradigms that limit evaluation of image-generation and image-editing capabilities. We introduce MedGEN-Bench, a benchmark for open-ended multimodal medical generation. The evaluation snapshot reported in this manuscript comprises 6,422 image-text pairs reviewed by clinical experts and models, spanning 6 canonical imaging modalities, 15 clinical tasks, and 27 named subtasks. It includes 1,100 Visual Question Answering (VQA) pairs, 3,872 Image Editing pairs, and 1,450 Contextual Multimodal Generation pairs. MedGEN-Bench centers on contextual entanglement: dependence of an instruction's intended output on the particular image instance rather than on task wording alone. The benchmark operationalizes this concept through image-grounded instructions and extends evaluation to open-ended multimodal outputs. Its tiered evaluation protocol combines reproducible reference-based fidelity and similarity measures with a structured, checklist-guided assessment by a medical VLM judge. We evaluate 10 compositional frameworks, 2 dedicated image-editing models, 3 unified models, and 5 VLMs. The results show image-output tasks remain unsaturated. Contextual augmentation increases mean image-instruction similarity from 0.273 to 0.372, while a 1,000-case medical-expert audit shows moderate agreement between judge scores and clinician ratings. Source code and dataset are available at https://yangjj007.github.io/medgen.

Medical large language models are typically evaluated on idealized patient cases that do not reflect how real patients communicate. We introduce VeriSim, a patient simulation framework that injects controllable noise along six clinically grounded communication dimensions while substantially preserving each patient's medical record. Truth adherence is supported by a verifier that extracts atomic claims from each candidate utterance and judges them against a UMLS-grounded vector index built with BioLORD embeddings, using the retrieved atoms' structured clinical metadata (e.g., drug class, anatomical site, treats-condition relations) rather than surface-text similarity alone. Across seven open-weight LLMs, realistic noise reduces diagnostic accuracy by 15-25 percentage points and increases conversation length by 34-55%; the 7-8B models degrade 1.4x more than 70B+ models. A board-certified physician and a licensed nurse rate VeriSim's conversations highly on truth, realism, clinical utility, and noise fidelity (inter-annotator agreement >= 0.80 across all dimensions), and an LLM-as-judge closely tracks their ratings, enabling scalable evaluation. We release VeriSim as an open-source framework for rigorous stress-testing of clinical AI: https://github.com/mohitmarvania/VeriSim

As vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to medical AI, existing benchmarks mainly focus on evaluating their diagnostic ability over given medical images and texts, implicitly assuming that standardized medical images, texts, or question-answer pairs are already prepared. However, this assumption does not hold when we apply VLMs in real clinical practice, where medical data is often raw, heterogeneous, and fragmented across different sources. In this paper, we study this missing step, i.e., raw medical data standardization. Specifically, models are given raw dataset folders and evaluated on their ability to identify source formats, convert raw medical images into VLM-compatible visual inputs, extract relevant textual information, and organize the results into structured image-text pairs. To construct this Medical Data Standardization Benchmark (MDS-Bench), we manually annotate 1,939 raw medical data standardization tasks covering diverse clinical practice, radiology modalities, annotation formats, and directory layouts. Extensive experiments show that even the best performing VLM, i.e., Gemini 3 Flash, achieves only a 48.6% end-to-end success rate. Our research highlights raw medical data standardization as a critical bottleneck for medical AI diagnosis in real practice.