Iris Xia

Zonghai Yao, Benlu Wang, Yifan Zhang et al.

Large language models perform well on many medical QA benchmarks, but real clinical reasoning often requires integrating evidence across multiple images rather than interpreting a single view. We introduce MedThinkVQA, an expert-annotated benchmark for thinking with multiple images, where models must interpret each image, combine cross-view evidence, and answer diagnostic questions with intermediate supervision and step-level evaluation. The dataset contains 8,067 cases, including 720 test cases, with an average of 6.62 images per case, substantially denser than prior work, whose expert-level benchmarks use at most 1.43 images per case. On the test set, the best closed-source models, Claude-4.6-Opus, Gemini-3-Pro, and GPT-5.2-xhigh, reach only 57.2%, 55.3%, and 54.9% accuracy, while GPT-5-mini and GPT-5-nano reach 39.7% and 30.8%. Strong open-source models lag behind, led by Qwen3.5-397B-A17B at 52.2% and Qwen3.5-27B at 50.6%. Further analysis identifies grounded multi-image reasoning as the main bottleneck: models often fail to extract, align, and compose evidence across views before higher-level inference can help. Providing expert single-image cues and cross-image summaries improves performance, whereas replacing them with self-generated intermediates reduces accuracy. Step-level analysis shows that over 70% of errors arise from image reading and cross-view integration. Scaling results further show that additional inference-time computation helps only when visual grounding is already reliable; when early evidence extraction is weak, longer reasoning yields limited or unstable gains and can amplify misread cues. These results suggest that the key challenge is not reasoning length alone, but reliable mechanisms for grounding, aligning, and composing distributed evidence across real-world multimodal clinical inputs.

Benlu Wang, Iris Xia, Yifan Zhang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on medical benchmarks; however, their ability to perform medical calculations, a crucial aspect of clinical decision-making, remains underexplored and poorly evaluated. Existing benchmarks often assess only the final answer with a wide numerical tolerance, overlooking systematic reasoning failures and potentially causing serious clinical misjudgments. In this work, we revisit medical calculation evaluation with a stronger focus on clinical trustworthiness. First, we clean and restructure the MedCalc-Bench dataset and propose a new step-by-step evaluation pipeline that independently assesses formula selection, entity extraction, and arithmetic computation. Under this granular framework, the accuracy of GPT-4o drops from 62.7% to 43.6%, revealing errors masked by prior evaluations. Second, we introduce an automatic error analysis framework that generates structured attribution for each failure mode. Human evaluation confirms its alignment with expert judgment, enabling scalable and explainable diagnostics. Finally, we propose a modular agentic pipeline, MedRaC, that combines retrieval-augmented generation and Python-based code execution. Without any fine-tuning, MedRaC improves the accuracy of different LLMs from 16.35% up to 53.19%. Our work highlights the limitations of current benchmark practices and proposes a more clinically faithful methodology. By enabling transparent and transferable reasoning evaluation, we move closer to making LLM-based systems trustworthy for real-world medical applications.