Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces PathoArgus-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate evidence-grounded visual reasoning in whole-slide pathology by measuring the availability, accessibility, use, and responsiveness of visual evidence. The authors reveal significant shortcomings in current models, such as GPT-5.6, which, despite achieving a high overall accuracy, fails to consistently ground predictions in the provided evidence, as demonstrated by its low QExact score. By highlighting the inadequacies of existing evaluation metrics and proposing a new fixed-budget reader, the study emphasizes the need for a paradigm shift towards evidence-based assessments in computational pathology.
Current models may excel in accuracy but often fail to ground their predictions in the visual evidence, with GPT-5.6 achieving only 3.93% QExact despite a seemingly high overall accuracy.
Whole-slide pathology reasoning requires models to integrate gigapixel-scale visual evidence across complete case-linked slides, yet current question-answering benchmarks primarily measure final answer accuracy--a metric vulnerable to linguistic priors and benchmark regularities, and insufficient to establish that predictions are grounded in the supplied tissue. We introduce PathoArgus-Bench, a benchmark and evaluation protocol that explicitly tests the full evidence chain: availability, accessibility, use, and responsiveness. PathoArgus-Bench comprises 22,078 four-choice questions from 4,913 patients across 15 TCGA projects, covering six pathology capabilities across three levels of evidence demand, and operates under a fixed reader budget that retains only a small fraction of the gigapixel context. To further isolate evidence-grounded reasoning, we contribute ESG (Evidence State Quartets), a controlled set of 483 quartets where the question text is fixed while the target WSI set is moved, replaced, or removed, requiring consistent predictions across all states. Evaluating 20 general-purpose, medical, and pathology-specific systems reveals a stark gap: while GPT-5.6 achieves 57.09% overall accuracy and 57.04% on ESG, it correctly completes only 19 of 483 quartets (3.93% QExact), exposing that row-level accuracy does not translate into reliable evidence grounding. We also introduce PathoArgus, a fixed-budget reader that allocates context via question relevance and spatial coverage, attaining 50.39% overall accuracy yet only 1.86% QExact--demonstrating that improved context access alone does not ensure consistent evidence-based prediction. Our benchmark and diagnostics establish that acquiring useful whole-slide context is necessary but far from sufficient, and call for a shift from answer-centric to evidence-grounded evaluation in computational pathology.
