Paper detail

Benchmark Success, Clinical Failure: When Reinforcement Learning Optimizes for Benchmarks, Not Patients

Recent Reinforcement Learning (RL) advances for Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved reasoning tasks, yet their resource-constrained application to medical imaging remains underexplored. We introduce ChexReason, a vision-language model trained via R1-style methodology (SFT followed by GRPO) using only 2,000 SFT samples, 1,000 RL samples, and a single A100 GPU. Evaluations on CheXpert and NIH benchmarks reveal a fundamental tension: GRPO recovers in-distribution performance (23% improvement on CheXpert, macro-F1 = 0.346) but degrades cross-dataset transferability (19% drop on NIH). This mirrors high-resource models like NV-Reason-CXR-3B, suggesting the issue stems from the RL paradigm rather than scale. We identify a generalization paradox where the SFT checkpoint uniquely improves on NIH before optimization, indicating teacher-guided reasoning captures more institution-agnostic features. Furthermore, cross-model comparisons show structured reasoning scaffolds benefit general-purpose VLMs but offer minimal gain for medically pre-trained models. Consequently, curated supervised fine-tuning may outperform aggressive RL for clinical deployment requiring robustness across diverse populations.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.