Nicanor Mayumu

2papers

2 Papers

41.3CVMar 25Code
RVLM: Recursive Vision-Language Models with Adaptive Depth

Nicanor Mayumu, Zeenath Khan, Melodena Stephens et al.

Medical AI systems face two fundamental limitations. First, conventional vision-language models (VLMs) perform single-pass inference, yielding black-box predictions that cannot be audited or explained in clinical terms. Second, iterative reasoning systems that expose intermediate steps rely on fixed iteration budgets wasting compute on simple cases while providing insufficient depth for complex ones. We address both limitations with a unified framework. RVLM replaces single-pass inference with an iterative generate-execute loop: at each step, the model writes Python code, invokes vision sub-agents, manipulates images, and accumulates evidence. Every diagnostic claim is grounded in executable code, satisfying auditability requirements of clinical AI governance frameworks. RRouter makes iteration depth adaptive: a lightweight controller predicts the optimal budget from task-complexity features, then monitors progress and terminates early when reasoning stalls. We evaluate on BraTS 2023 Meningioma (brain MRI) and MIMIC-CXR (chest X-ray) using Gemini 2.5 Flash without fine-tuning. Across repeated runs, RVLM shows high consistency on salient findings (e.g., mass presence and enhancement) and can detect cross-modal discrepancies between Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) signal characteristics and segmentation boundaries. On MIMIC-CXR, it generates structured reports and correctly recognises view-specific artefacts. Code: https://github.com/nican2018/rvlm.

51.6AIMay 17
Is VLA Reasoning Faithful? Probing Safety of Chain-of-Causation

Nicanor Mayumu, Xiaoheng Deng, Patrick Mukala

We present the first systematic study of faithfulness in Vision-Language-Action (VLA) driving models, analyzing 300 Alpamayo-R1-10B inferences across 100 diverse PhysicalAI-AV scenarios. Our main finding is that output natural-language rationales with trajectories may be significantly unfaithful: (i) overall reasoning fidelity is only 42.5%, with Chain-of-Causation matching scene reality less than half the time; (ii) 94 missed pedestrians in one-third of pedestrian-relevant scenes; (iii) 97.7% trajectory fragility under mild visual perturbations; and (iv) only 48.3% mean reasoning-action consistency, with 53.3% of inferences exhibiting low consistency, including 37.9% of stop-claimed cases where the model continues instead. We formalize faithfulness information-theoretically, define entity and action fidelity with verification criteria, and outline a four-component safety architecture aligned with these results.