arXiv preprint ·
Option-Aware Retrieval and Task-Specific VLM Adaptation for Medical VQA
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0\% to 57.5\% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number \(k\) of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5\%) at both \(k=0\) and the adapter's training-time \(k=1\), 188/200 (94.0\%) at the packaged runtime's default \(k=3\) --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of \(k=3\), selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as \(k\) grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant (\(p \ge 0.29\)); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0\% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20\% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43\% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
ModularRSI: Modular and Generalizable Recursive Harness Self-Improvement
Early-Bird Decoding: Accelerating Diffusion LLMs with Learnable Block Sizes and Parallel Sampling
Dream-RSI: Recursive Self-Improvement through Evolving Worlds
Language Orthogonalization for Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Audio Deepfake Detection
One Example Is Enough to Pass Fairness Benchmarks: Rethinking Fairness Evaluation for Aligned LLMs
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.