Do Medical Vision Language Models Actually See? A Counterfactual Grounding Framework and Hard-Negative Contrastive Training for Visually-Reliant Medical VLMs

Large vision language models (VLMs) report strong accuracy on medical question-answering, yet it remains unclear whether they reason from visual evidence or exploit textual shortcuts. We introduce a counterfactual evaluation framework that decouples visual and textual contributions by substituting input images with controlled surrogates blank, pixel-shuffled, image-absent, and CLIP-retrieved hard negatives and derive a suite of grounding metrics including the Visual Reliance Score (VRS) and Visual Hallucination Rate (VHR). We further introduce CORAL (COntrastive Retrieval-Augmented Learning), a 7B-parameter LoRA fine-tune of Qwen2.5-VL-7B trained with a Contrastive Grounding Objective (CGO) that penalises answer invariance under hard-negative image swaps. On a paired controlled evaluation across four closed-form medical VQA benchmarks (PathVQA, PMC-VQA, SLAKE, VQA-RAD; n=400 total), CORAL improves macro accuracy by +6.7 pp (P(Delta>0)=0.988) and reduces VHR by 8.0 pp (P<0.001) over the matched Qwen2.5-VL-7B base; neither MedVLThinker RL variant achieves a significant gain on either metric. Cross-domain diagnostics further reveal that image substitution costs only <=6.5 pp on medical benchmarks versus 48-61 pp on general-domain tasks, situating the grounding gap that CGO targets. We discuss evaluation limitations openly including train/eval benchmark overlap and underpowered secondary metrics and release our framework, training code, and model weights to support reproducible grounding audits of medical VLMs.

Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating Visual Grounding In Multimodal Medical Reasoning

Recent work shows that text-only reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) can match or outperform image-text RLVR on multimodal medical VQA benchmarks, suggesting current evaluation protocols may fail to measure causal visual dependence. We introduce a counterfactual evaluation framework using real, blank, and shuffled images across four medical VQA benchmarks: PathVQA, PMC-VQA, SLAKE, and VQA-RAD. Beyond accuracy, we measure Visual Reliance Score (VRS), Image Sensitivity (IS), and introduce Hallucinated Visual Reasoning Rate (HVRR) to detect cases where models generate visual claims despite producing image-invariant answers. Our findings reveal that RLVR improves accuracy while degrading visual grounding: text-only RLVR achieves negative VRS on PathVQA (-0.09), performing better with mismatched images, while image-text RLVR reduces image sensitivity to 39.8% overall despite improving accuracy. On VQA-RAD, both variants achieve 63% accuracy through different mechanisms: text-only RLVR retains 81% performance with blank images, while image-text RLVR shows only 29% image sensitivity. Models generate visual claims in 68-74% of responses, yet 38-43% are ungrounded (HVRR). These findings demonstrate that accuracy-only rewards enable shortcut exploitation, and progress requires grounding-aware evaluation protocols and training objectives that explicitly enforce visual dependence.