Discovering Pathology Rationale and Token Allocation for Efficient Multimodal Pathology Reasoning

Cheng Jin; Hao Chen; Yihui Wang; Zhe Xu; Ziyi Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 14 references

Discovering Pathology Rationale and Token Allocation for Efficient Multimodal Pathology Reasoning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-branch RL system lifts pathology reasoning accuracy by 41.7 points and cuts inference cost by 70.3%.

desk verdict The RL token allocator is the real contribution, but the 70.3% efficiency claim omits the allocator's own forward pass and the PathMMU split is non-standard, so the headline numbers need correction before this is citable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15687 v1 pith:J24YDCVD submitted 2025-05-21 cs.CV cs.AI

Zhe Xu , Cheng Jin , Yihui Wang , Ziyi Liu , Hao Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords multimodalpathologyreasoningreinforcementlearningGRPOtokenallocationvisualquestionansweringcancersubtypinglesiondetectioncomputational

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a bilateral reinforcement learning setup can give a general vision-language model both expert-level pathology reasoning and content-aware token budgeting. One branch, trained with group relative policy optimization, learns to emit pathologist-like rationales from task labels alone. The other branch, also trained by reinforcement learning, decides how many visual tokens each image gets. On VQA, cancer subtyping, and lesion detection, the combined system reports an average +41.7 absolute accuracy gain over the base Qwen2.5-VL-7B model while reducing tokens per image by about 70.3%. A sympathetic reader would care because this is an attempt to attack diagnostic reasoning and inference cost simultaneously, rather than trading one off against the other.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of reinforcement branches: a LoRA-tuned task performer optimized by GRPO using the composite rewards $R_{vqa}$, $R_{sub}$, and $R_{det}$, and a LoRA-tuned token allocator trained with the reward $R_{token} + \lambda R_{format}$ to output an integer token budget. The allocator's reward couples efficiency directly to accuracy, returning the full task reward only when the chosen token count does not exceed the original count. The format reward checks only the presence of <think> and <answer> tags, so the mechanism that is meant to produce pathology rationale is purely outcome-driven rather than content-supervised.

What would settle it

Hold out a pathology VQA set, run the GRPO-trained performer, then replace every generated thinking block with a constant placeholder while keeping the answer text unchanged. If accuracy does not drop, the reasoning tokens are causally inert and the central rationale-discovery claim fails; if accuracy collapses, the rationales are genuinely load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reasoning problem and the efficiency problem in multimodal pathology can be solved by the same reinforcement learning machinery. The task performer branch uses GRPO with rewards built from exact-match accuracy, BLEU, or AP50 plus a format reward requiring the response to appear inside <think> and <answer> tags, and this outcome-driven training pushes the model to produce structured intermediate rationales without explicit reasoning supervision. The token allocator branch is trained with a composite reward that returns the task reward if the proposed token count stays at or below the original and only half the task reward otherwise, making the model spend more tokens only when the extra tokens buy measurable accuracy. Across six public datasets, the full system outperforms SFT, pathology-specialized foundation models, and the base MLLM, with tokens per image dropping from 1369 on the base model to as low as 112.7 on PathMMU while accuracy rises.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that optimizing final-answer correctness and a format reward that only requires a thinking section and an answer section is enough to make the model learn genuine, content-correct pathology rationales.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On PathMMU, the full system reaches an overall test accuracy of 72.2 while using 112.7 tokens per image, versus 239.9 for the performer alone and 881.5 for the base model, showing the allocator's savings do not trade away accuracy.
The task performer raises average detection mAP from 53.4 to 69.9 on DigestPath2019 and from 58.6 to 72.1 on CRAG, suggesting outcome-only RL can replace hand-written reasoning supervision even in dense prediction tasks.
Because the token allocator is conditioned on the task prompt, it extends to any new pathology task that can be phrased as a prompt without retraining the allocation policy.
If the approach scales beyond 7B parameters and ROI patches, whole-slide reasoning becomes more practical because compute now follows diagnostic complexity instead of image file size.
The framework shows that pathology-specialized pretraining is not strictly necessary for strong subtyping performance, since the RL-trained performer surpasses several foundation models without large-scale pathology pretraining.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

In my reading, the efficiency result is likely to transfer to other high-resolution medical imaging domains because the token allocator's reward is task-agnostic; the same reduction in tokens per image should appear for radiology or dermatology images, which the paper does not test.
The 'discovered pathology rationale' claim is not yet closed, because no reward verifies the content of the reasoning text; the paper demonstrates that the model emits reasoning-shaped output, but whether that output reflects true diagnostic logic remains an inference rather than a demonstrated fact.
A natural extension is to add a rationale-faithfulness reward that checks the generated thinking against a verifiable feature checklist or a frozen pathology expert, which would convert the interpretability claim into a directly testable objective.
The allocator's budget policy could be reused as a data-curation signal, automatically identifying which patches are diagnostically saturated and which need higher-resolution sampling for further training.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The token allocator is the genuinely new idea here: an RL-trained branch that predicts a per-image token budget, with a reward that trades task accuracy against token count. That is worth taking seriously. The GRPO reasoning branch is a fairly direct application of DeepSeek-R1/Visual-RFT to pathology, but the combination with the allocator is new, and the paper does the right empirical legwork across six datasets, including comparisons with pathology-specific foundation models. The fixed-budget ablation in Table 6 is informative: the allocator beats M=128, 512, and 1024 at lower TPI, which suggests the learned policy is doing something real.

The soft spots are real, though. The efficiency headline does not survive a close read. TPI in Tables 1–5 counts only the task performer's image tokens. The token allocator is itself a LoRA-tuned 7B VLM, so at deployment it runs a full forward pass before the task performer; that computation is invisible in the reported 70.3% reduction. Even before counting the allocator's autoregressive text generation, the PathMMU number goes from 112.7 TPI to roughly 368.7 if the allocator uses the same 256-token budget, a 58% reduction, not 70%. The paper needs a system-level measurement (total TPI, FLOPs, or latency including both models) before any efficiency claim is credible.

The PathMMU protocol is also a problem. Training on the non-testtiny portion of the test set and evaluating only on testtiny and val is a non-standard split, and the paper should justify it or use an independent validation set. I also agree with your note that most of the accuracy gain comes from SFT, not the RL performer; the abstract's +41.7 versus base conflates the two. And there are no error bars, seeds, code, or checkpoints, which limits how much any reader can verify. The 'discovered rationale' claim is weakly supported since the reward never checks reasoning content, though the qualitative examples suggest the model sometimes produces plausible chains.

None of this kills the core idea. The token allocator is a legitimate contribution, and with code, corrected efficiency accounting, and a cleaner PathMMU split, the results on the other five datasets could be credible. I would not desk-reject it. Send it to review, but the reviewers should insist on those fixes. For my own work, I would not rely on the reported numbers yet, but I would cite the allocator concept as relevant prior art.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bilateral reinforcement learning framework for multimodal pathology reasoning. A task performer branch is trained with SFT followed by GRPO using task-specific rewards (exact match/BLEU for VQA, accuracy for subtyping, AP50 for detection) plus a format reward that enforces <think>/<answer> tags. A token allocator branch, also LoRA-tuned on a 7B MLLM, is trained with RL to predict a per-image token budget, balancing task accuracy against token count. Experiments on six pathology datasets (PathMMU, PathVQA, UniToPatho, ESCA, CRAG, DigestPath2019) report large accuracy gains and token reductions relative to the base Qwen2.5-VL-7B, with a headline average +41.7 absolute performance improvement and 70.3% lower inference costs.

Significance. If the results are credible, the paper addresses a practically important problem: improving reasoning and reducing compute for large pathology images in a single system. The proposed combination of GRPO for the task performer and an RL-trained token allocator is a reasonable and interesting design, and the qualitative examples illustrate the intended adaptive behavior. The paper is clearly written and the experimental scope is broad, covering VQA, subtyping, and detection. However, the current manuscript does not ship code, checkpoints, seeds, or error bars, and the efficiency and PathMMU evaluation issues described below directly affect the headline claims, so the significance is conditional on correction of those points.

major comments (4)

[3.2.2 / Tables 1-5] The claimed 70.3% inference-cost reduction is not supported because the reported TPI counts only the task performer's image tokens and omits the token allocator's own forward pass. The allocator is defined in Section 3.2.2 as r = TA(I, p_sys, p_ta), a LoRA-tuned MLLM branch that must run before the task performer at inference. On PathMMU, for example, the reported TPI with the full system is 112.7 vs. 881.5 for the base model; if the allocator itself consumes M=256 image tokens, the system-level image token total would be at least 112.7+256=368.7, a 58.2% reduction rather than 70.3%, before counting the allocator's autoregressive text output and the added latency of a second sequential model call. Please report a system-level metric that includes the allocator's image and text tokens, FLOPs, or wall-clock latency, and adjust the efficiency headline accordingly.
[Appendix B / Table 1] The PathMMU evaluation protocol is non-standard and potentially leaking: the paper states that 'we use the official testtiny and val data of the other four subsets for evaluation and the rest test data for training.' Training on the portion of the benchmark test set that is not used for evaluation means the reported PathMMU numbers are not an unbiased estimate of generalization to unseen benchmark data. Please either train only on the official train split, or clearly justify why training on the remaining test data is acceptable, and report results on the full official test set if available. This point is load-bearing because PathMMU is the primary VQA benchmark and the largest reported gains.
[3.2.1 / Eq. (7)-(9)] The claim that the model 'discovers pathology rationale' is not established by the reward design or the reported experiments. The rewards Rvqa, Rsub, and Rdet depend only on the final answer (exact match, BLEU, AP50) and on format compliance (presence of <think> and <answer> tags); there is no reward component that checks the content or correctness of the reasoning text. The observed accuracy gains could come from the RL optimization alone, with the generated rationale being epiphenomenal or even incorrect. Please provide an evaluation of rationale quality (e.g., expert rating, or an ablation where the reasoning text is removed or corrupted at inference) before claiming that the framework discovers genuine pathology rationales.
[4.2 / Tables 1-6] No random seeds, number of runs, error bars, code, or checkpoints are reported, and all tables present single numbers without variance. Given that the paper claims state-of-the-art results and a large efficiency gain, this is insufficient for reproducibility and for assessing whether the reported differences (e.g., the small improvements of the allocator over the fixed-budget performer on several subsets) are significant. Please provide standard deviations across multiple seeds or released code/checkpoints that allow independent verification.

minor comments (6)

[Table 1] The SFT row contains a clear formatting error: '7560.5' appears in the Atlas column and should likely be '75.6'; please correct the table.
[Table 6] In the row for 'M=512', the entry '64.475420.7' appears to be a concatenation of '64.4' and '75420.7'; please fix the formatting so each column contains a single number.
[Section 4.3, Detection Tasks] The sentence 'The overall average mAP of represents a more than 37.2% and 26.1% boost...' is missing the mAP value; please insert the number.
[Section 3.2.1] There is a typo: 'Task Perfomer' should be 'Task Performer'.
[Appendix B] The text reads 'CRAG and and DigestPath2019 Tissue'; the duplicated 'and' should be removed.
[References] Some references appear with duplicate entries (e.g., Ma et al. 2024a and 2024b) and inconsistent formats; please unify the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rewards are defined against ground-truth labels and the evaluation uses held-out splits; the reported concerns are correctness/completeness issues, not circular derivations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The task performer is trained with SFT and GRPO using task rewards (Eqs. 7-9) that compare parsed outputs to ground-truth answers, labels, and boxes, so the accuracy gain is not defined in terms of itself. The token allocator is trained with Eq. 10, where Rtoken is the task performer's reward evaluated at the allocated budget; this couples the two branches but does not make the allocator's output equal to its input or to a fitted constant. Evaluation is reported on held-out test splits (e.g., PathVQA official split, UniToPatho test images, CRAG/DigestPath test splits), so no test label is used to construct the reported numbers. The mild coupling noted by the reader (allocator optimized against the same performer used in evaluation) is a standard co-optimization design, not a reduction by construction. Same-group citations (Ma et al., Yang et al., Xu et al.) appear in related-work and future-work contexts and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The absence of a reward term that checks the factual content of the generated <think> rationale weakens the interpretability claim, but that is an evaluation-gap concern, not circularity. The PathMMU training-on-remaining-test-data protocol and the omission of the token allocator's own forward pass from the TPI efficiency metric are correctness/completeness issues and should be addressed separately; they do not make any equation or fitted parameter equivalent to the claimed prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on hand-chosen hyperparameters (M, P, alpha, lambda, GRPO settings) and on the domain assumption that downsampled images retain diagnostic information and that final-answer rewards elicit genuine reasoning. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)

Token budget M = 256
Maximum number of visual tokens per image during training, set by hand in Section 4.2; it is the main source of the reported TPI reduction.
Patch size P = 28
Patch size for tokenization, set in Section 4.2; it determines the token count and the resize grid.
Token allocator reward discount alpha = 0.5
Coefficient applied to Rtask when Np is larger than N0, set in Eq. (10); it controls the efficiency-accuracy trade-off and is chosen by hand.
Format reward weight lambda = 1
Weight for Rformat in all reward functions, set in Section 3.2.1; chosen without ablation.
GRPO group size G = 8
Number of sampled outputs per question in GRPO, set in Section 4.2.
GRPO KL coefficient beta = 0.001
KL regularization coefficient in Eq. (1), set in Section 4.2.
GRPO clip coefficient epsilon = 0.2
Clipping range in Eq. (1), set in Section 4.2.
LoRA rank = 16
LoRA intrinsic rank, set in Section 4.2.
LoRA scaling = 64
LoRA global scaling factor, set in Section 4.2.
Learning rate = 1e-4
Initial learning rate for AdamW, set in Section 4.2 with a cosine schedule.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The resize operator defined in Eqs. (4)-(6) preserves enough diagnostic information for accurate reasoning at the allocated token budget.
The whole token allocation branch relies on this: if downsampling destroys subtle features, the allocator's reward is mis-specified. The paper itself notes in Section C that very low budgets can miss diagnoses.
domain assumption Optimizing task rewards (exact match, BLEU, AP50) plus a format reward that only requires think/answer tags is sufficient to elicit genuine, interpretable pathology rationales.
No reward component verifies rationale correctness; the causal link between chain-of-thought text and accuracy is assumed, following DeepSeek-R1 style reasoning.
domain assumption The task performer's accuracy at a given token budget is a valid proxy for the clinical utility of that budget, so the token allocator's reward correctly trades off efficiency and accuracy.
Rtask is computed from the same performer used in evaluation, and the allocator is trained to maximize this proxy rather than an independent diagnostic measure.
domain assumption Qwen2.5-VL-7B is an appropriate base model whose failure modes on pathology are representative and whose SFT plus RL can be meaningfully compared to pathology-specific foundation models.
The entire comparison is built on this base; different base models could yield different conclusions.
standard math GRPO, LoRA, and the loss weights used are standard and correctly implemented; no formal verification is provided.
The paper relies on standard RL optimization and does not prove convergence; this is normal for empirical ML.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovering Pathology Rationale and Token Allocation for Efficient Multimodal Pathology Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J24YDCVD

@misc{pith2026250515687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovering Pathology Rationale and Token Allocation for Efficient Multimodal Pathology Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J24YDCVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15687}
}

read the original abstract

Multimodal pathological image understanding has garnered widespread interest due to its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and enable personalized treatment through integrated visual and textual data. However, existing methods exhibit limited reasoning capabilities, which hamper their ability to handle complex diagnostic scenarios. Additionally, the enormous size of pathological images leads to severe computational burdens, further restricting their practical deployment. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel bilateral reinforcement learning framework comprising two synergistic branches. One reinforcement branch enhances the reasoning capability by enabling the model to learn task-specific decision processes, i.e., pathology rationales, directly from labels without explicit reasoning supervision. While the other branch dynamically allocates a tailored number of tokens to different images based on both their visual content and task context, thereby optimizing computational efficiency. We apply our method to various pathological tasks such as visual question answering, cancer subtyping, and lesion detection. Extensive experiments show an average +41.7 absolute performance improvement with 70.3% lower inference costs over the base models, achieving both reasoning accuracy and computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15687 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overall framework of our method. High-resolution pathological images are first prepro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Qualitative results of pathological reasoning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Static token budgets result in suboptimal efficiency-accuracy trade-offs across diverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Diagnostic divergence in interpreting pigmented hair follicle structures. Qwen2.5-VL (2142 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Performance comparison of Qwen2.5-VL, SFT, and task performer models in classifying a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Detection of glandular structures in colon tissue across models. Qwen2.5-VL fails to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923,

arXiv
[6]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

arXiv
[7]

Table 7: Pathological Reasoning Templates

System prompt and VQA/ subtyping/ detection prompt are utilized for the task performer, while system prompt and token allocation prompt for the token allocator. Table 7: Pathological Reasoning Templates. System Prompt psys:A conversation between User and Assistant. The user asks a question, and the assistant solves it. The assistant first thinks about the...

work page 2020
[9]

A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024a

Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Ivy Liang, Tong Ding, Guillaume Jaume, Igor Odintsov, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, et al. A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024a. Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Melissa Zhao, Aaron K Chow, Kenji Ikemura, Ahrong...

arXiv
[10]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

arXiv
[11]

Cpath-omni: A unified multimodal foundation model for patch and whole slide image analysis in computational pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12077, 2024a

Yuxuan Sun, Yixuan Si, Chenglu Zhu, Xuan Gong, Kai Zhang, Pingyi Chen, Ye Zhang, Zhongyi Shui, Tao Lin, and Lin Yang. Cpath-omni: A unified multimodal foundation model for patch and whole slide image analysis in computational pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12077, 2024a. Yuxuan Sun, Hao Wu, Chenglu Zhu, Sunyi Zheng, Qizi Chen, Kai Zhang, Yunlong Zhang...

arXiv
[12]

A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data.Nature, 630(8015):181–188, 2024a

Hanwen Xu, Naoto Usuyama, Jaspreet Bagga, Sheng Zhang, Rajesh Rao, Tristan Naumann, Cliff Wong, Zelalem Gero, Javier González, Yu Gu, et al. A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data.Nature, 630(8015):181–188, 2024a. Yingxue Xu, Yihui Wang, Fengtao Zhou, Jiabo Ma, Cheng Jin, Shu Yang, Jinbang Li, Zhengyu Zhang, Chenglong Zh...

arXiv
[256]

These observations underscore the need for adaptive token allocation, where the model dynamically adjusts its computational budget based on input complexity

might fail to capture subtle but critical features (e.g., irregular nuclear contours and increased nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio), leading to missed diagnoses of keratinocyte atypia (Option C). These observations underscore the need for adaptive token allocation, where the model dynamically adjusts its computational budget based on input complexity. Such a...

work page 2022

Show all 14 references

[2014]

Med-r1: Reinforcement learning for generalizable medical reasoning in vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13939,

Yuxiang Lai, Jike Zhong, Ming Li, Shitian Zhao, and Xiaofeng Yang. Med-r1: Reinforcement learning for generalizable medical reasoning in vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13939,
[2018]

Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720,

arXiv
[2019]

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

arXiv
[2020]

Visual-rft: Visual reinforcement fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01785,

Ziyu Liu, Zeyi Sun, Yuhang Zang, Xiaoyi Dong, Yuhang Cao, Haodong Duan, Dahua Lin, and Jiaqi Wang. Visual-rft: Visual reinforcement fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01785,

arXiv
[2024]

Scaling self-supervised learning for histopathology with masked image modeling.medRxiv, pages 2023–07,

Alexandre Filiot, Ridouane Ghermi, Antoine Olivier, Paul Jacob, Lucas Fidon, Axel Camara, Alice Mac Kain, Charlie Saillard, and Jean-Baptiste Schiratti. Scaling self-supervised learning for histopathology with masked image modeling.medRxiv, pages 2023–07,

2023
[2025]

Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286,

Xuehai He, Yichen Zhang, Luntian Mou, Eric Xing, and Pengtao Xie. Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286,

2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, et al. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923,

arXiv

[2] [6]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

arXiv

[3] [7]

Table 7: Pathological Reasoning Templates

System prompt and VQA/ subtyping/ detection prompt are utilized for the task performer, while system prompt and token allocation prompt for the token allocator. Table 7: Pathological Reasoning Templates. System Prompt psys:A conversation between User and Assistant. The user asks a question, and the assistant solves it. The assistant first thinks about the...

work page 2020

[4] [9]

A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024a

Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Ivy Liang, Tong Ding, Guillaume Jaume, Igor Odintsov, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, et al. A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024a. Ming Y Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew FK Williamson, Richard J Chen, Melissa Zhao, Aaron K Chow, Kenji Ikemura, Ahrong...

arXiv

[5] [10]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

arXiv

[6] [11]

Cpath-omni: A unified multimodal foundation model for patch and whole slide image analysis in computational pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12077, 2024a

Yuxuan Sun, Yixuan Si, Chenglu Zhu, Xuan Gong, Kai Zhang, Pingyi Chen, Ye Zhang, Zhongyi Shui, Tao Lin, and Lin Yang. Cpath-omni: A unified multimodal foundation model for patch and whole slide image analysis in computational pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12077, 2024a. Yuxuan Sun, Hao Wu, Chenglu Zhu, Sunyi Zheng, Qizi Chen, Kai Zhang, Yunlong Zhang...

arXiv

[7] [12]

A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data.Nature, 630(8015):181–188, 2024a

Hanwen Xu, Naoto Usuyama, Jaspreet Bagga, Sheng Zhang, Rajesh Rao, Tristan Naumann, Cliff Wong, Zelalem Gero, Javier González, Yu Gu, et al. A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data.Nature, 630(8015):181–188, 2024a. Yingxue Xu, Yihui Wang, Fengtao Zhou, Jiabo Ma, Cheng Jin, Shu Yang, Jinbang Li, Zhengyu Zhang, Chenglong Zh...

arXiv

[8] [256]

These observations underscore the need for adaptive token allocation, where the model dynamically adjusts its computational budget based on input complexity

might fail to capture subtle but critical features (e.g., irregular nuclear contours and increased nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio), leading to missed diagnoses of keratinocyte atypia (Option C). These observations underscore the need for adaptive token allocation, where the model dynamically adjusts its computational budget based on input complexity. Such a...

work page 2022