Cited by 67Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic Modeling

RULE: Reliable Multimodal RAG for Factuality in Medical Vision Language Models

Open access
Xia, Peng, Zhu, Kangyu, Li, Haoran, Zhu, Hongtu, Li, Yun, Li, Gang, Zhang, Linjun, Yao, Huaxiu·2024·Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

The recent emergence of Medical Large Vision Language Models (Med-LVLMs) has enhanced medical diagnosis.However, current Med-LVLMs frequently encounter factual issues, often generating responses that do not align with established medical facts.Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which utilizes external knowledge, can improve the factual accuracy of these models but introduces two major challenges.First, limited retrieved contexts might not cover all necessary information, while excessive retrieval can introduce irrelevant and inaccurate references, interfering with the model's generation.Second, in cases where the model originally responds correctly, applying RAG can lead to an over-reliance on retrieved contexts, resulting in incorrect answers.To address these issues, we propose RULE, which consists of two components.First, we introduce a provably effective strategy for controlling factuality risk through the calibrated selection of the number of retrieved contexts.Second, based on samples where over-reliance on retrieved contexts led to errors, we curate a preference dataset to fine-tune the model, balancing its dependence on inherent knowledge and retrieved contexts for generation.We demonstrate the effectiveness of RULE on medical VQA and report generation tasks across three datasets, achieving an average improvement of 47.4% in factual accuracy.We publicly release our benchmark and code in https: //github.com/richard-peng-xia/RULE.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.62

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Known performance degradation with long or noisy textual input for medical vision-language large models.

    “To address the known performance degradation with long or noisy textual input for medical vision-language large models83,84”

    From MoMA: a mixture-of-multimodal-agents architecture for enhancing clinical prediction modelling (2025) · cites this paper as [83]

    Section 3.2 says excessive retrieved text can introduce low-relevance or inaccurate references that interfere with a medical vision-language model’s generation. Section 3.3 also reports cases where adding retrieved context turns a correct answer into an incorrect one. These findings support degradation from lengthy or unreliable retrieved context, but not a general claim about long or noisy textual input of any kind. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Known performance degradation with long or noisy textual input for medical vision-language large models.

    “To address the known performance degradation with long or noisy textual input for medical vision-language large models83,84”

    From MoMA: a mixture-of-multimodal-agents architecture for enhancing clinical prediction modelling (2025) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Medical Image section says that a large number of retrieved textual contexts can include irrelevant or inaccurate references that interfere with Med-LVLM generation. Section 3.3 also describes correct answers becoming incorrect after retrieved contexts are added. This supports degradation from noisy retrieved text, but the paper does not establish degradation from long textual input in general. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This is similar to challenges observed in RAG systems where retrieved information is not effectively incorporated.

    “This is similar to challenges observed in RAG systems where retrieved information is not effectively incorporated (50, 51).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:23716-23736.
  2. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, pages 65-72.
  3. Frank Bretz, Willi Maurer, Werner Brannath, and Mar- tin Posch. 2009. A graphical approach to sequen- tially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in medicine, 28(4):586-604.
  4. Dina Demner-Fushman, Marc D Kohli, Marc B Rosen- man, Sonya E Shooshan, Laritza Rodriguez, Sameer Antani, George R Thoma, and Clement J McDon- ald. 2016. Preparing a collection of radiology ex- aminations for distribution and retrieval. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(2):304-310.
  5. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recog- nition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770-778.
  6. Sunan He, Yuxiang Nie, Zhixuan Chen, Zhiyuan Cai, Hongmei Wang, Shu Yang, and Hao Chen. 2024. Meddr: Diagnosis-guided bootstrapping for large-scale medical vision-language learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15127. · arXiv
  7. Ming Hu, Lin Wang, Siyuan Yan, Don Ma, Qingli Ren, Peng Xia, Wei Feng, Peibo Duan, Lie Ju, and Zongyuan Ge. 2024a. Nurvid: A large expert- level video database for nursing procedure activ- ity understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
  8. Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Nau- mann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Llava- med: Training a large language-and-vision assis- tant for biomedicine in one day. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track.
  9. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81.
  10. Weixiong Lin, Ziheng Zhao, Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. 2023. Pmc-clip: Contrastive language-image pre-training using biomedical documents. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 525-536.
  11. Michael Moor, Qian Huang, Shirley Wu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yash Dalmia, Jure Leskovec, Cyril Za- kka, Eduardo Pontes Reis, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2023. Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner. In Machine Learning for Health (ML4H), pages 353-367. PMLR. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. https:// arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  12. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311-318.
  13. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christo- pher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  14. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Se- quence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3104-3112.
  15. Yitian Tao, Liyan Ma, Jing Yu, and Han Zhang. 2024. Memory-based cross-modal semantic alignment net- work for radiology report generation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.
  16. Alexandra-Maria Tȃuţan, Bogdan Ionescu, and Emil- iano Santarnecchi. 2021. Artificial intelligence in neurodegenerative diseases: A review of available tools with a focus on machine learning techniques. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 117:102081.
  17. Aad W Van der Vaart. 2000. Asymptotic statistics, vol- ume 3. Cambridge university press.
  18. Chaoyi Wu, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Weidi Xie, and Yanfeng Wang. 2024. Pmc- llama: toward building open-source language mod- els for medicine. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, page ocae045.
  19. Chaoyi Wu, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. 2023. Towards general- ist foundation model for radiology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02463. · arXiv
  20. Peng Xia, Di Xu, Ming Hu, Lie Ju, and Zongyuan Ge. 2024c. Lmpt: Prompt tuning with class-specific embedding loss for long-tailed multi-label visual recognition. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Advances in Language and Vision Research (ALVR), pages 26-36, Bangkok, Thailand. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Qing Ye, Chang-Yu Hsieh, Ziyi Yang, Yu Kang, Jim- ing Chen, Dongsheng Cao, Shibo He, and Tingjun Hou. 2021. A unified drug-target interaction pre- diction framework based on knowledge graph and recommendation system. Nature communications, 12(1):6775.
  22. Zheng Yuan, Qiao Jin, Chuanqi Tan, Zhengyun Zhao, Hongyi Yuan, Fei Huang, and Songfang Huang. 2023. Ramm: Retrieval-augmented biomed- ical visual question answering with multi-modal pre-training. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 547- 556.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xia, P., Zhu, K., Li, H., Zhu, H., Li, Y., Li, G., Zhang, L., & Yao, H.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2024
Pages
1081-1093
OpenAlex
W4404783798
Cited by
67
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 3
FWCI
13.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Cisco Systems
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
retrieval-augmented generation, factuality, factual accuracy, preference dataset, fine-tuning, medical report generation, multimodal retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review