PreprintCited by 2Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

m1: Unleash the Potential of Test-Time Scaling for Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models

Open access
Huang, Xiaoke, Wu, Juncheng, Liu, Hui, Tang, Xianfeng, Zhou, Yuyin·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Test-time scaling has emerged as a powerful technique for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models. However, its effectiveness in medical reasoning remains uncertain, as the medical domain fundamentally differs from mathematical tasks in terms of knowledge representation and decision-making processes. In this paper, we provide the first comprehensive investigation of test-time scaling for medical reasoning and present m1, a simple yet effective approach that increases a model's medical reasoning capability at inference. Our evaluation across diverse medical tasks demonstrates that test-time scaling consistently enhances medical reasoning, enabling lightweight fine-tuned models under 10B parameters to establish new state-of-the-art performance, while our 32B model rivals previous 70B-scale medical LLMs. However, we identify an optimal reasoning token budget of approximately 4K, beyond which performance may degrade due to overthinking. Budget forcing, which extends test-time computation through iterative prompts, helps models double-check answers but does not necessarily improve the overall medical QA performance and, in some cases, even introduces errors into previously correct responses. Our case-by-case analysis identifies insufficient medical knowledge as a key bottleneck that prevents further performance gains through test-time scaling. We find that increasing data scale, improving data quality, and expanding model capacity consistently enhance medical knowledge grounding, enabling continued performance improvements, particularly on challenging medical benchmarks where smaller models reach saturation. These findings underscore fundamental differences between medical and mathematical reasoning in LLMs, highlighting that enriched medical knowledge, other than increased reasoning depth alone, is essential for realizing the benefits of test-time scaling.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.00869

Cites

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?

  • A key driver of hallucinations in medical LLMs is a shortage of domain knowledge, causing models to fabricate plausible-sounding but wrong information.

    “One key driver of hallucinations in medical LLMs is simply a shortage of domain knowledge: if the model's internal parameters don't”

    From VeReaFine: Iterative Verification Reasoning Refinement RAG for Hallucination-Resistant on Open-Ended Clinical QA (2025) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2025

    The Introduction (p. 3) attributes a medical-reasoning bottleneck to deficiencies in essential medical knowledge, and the Results (p. 7) show that missing or faulty knowledge can lead to incorrect reasoning or answers. The paper does not specifically identify knowledge shortage as a driver of hallucinations or describe models fabricating plausible-sounding information. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reasoning traces used to train HuatuoGPT-o1 were generated by GPT-4o, while those used for m1 were synthesized by DeepSeek-R1.

    “While the reasoning traces used to train HuatuoGPT-o1 were generated by GPT-4o [6,29], those used for m1 were synthesized by DeepSeek-R1 [9,34].”
  • VeReaFine recovers over 90% of the step-identification fidelity of a 32B baseline (M1-32B) in multi-hop inverse questions.

    “Our experiments show that, despite using a moderate-size 7B generator, VeReaFine achieves recall gains of +60-100% at the 75th percentile (P75) over the same model without verification, and recovers over 90% of the step-identification fidelity of a 32B baseline (Sub2: M1-32B (UCSC-VLAA, 2024; Huang et al., 2025; UCSC-VLAA, 2024)) in multi-hop inverse questions.”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023. · arXiv
  2. Pranjal Aggarwal and Sean Welleck. L1: Controlling how long a reasoning model thinks with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04697 , 2025. · arXiv
  3. Hanjie Chen, Zhouxiang Fang, Yash Singla, and Mark Dredze. Benchmarking large language models on answering and explaining challenging medical questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18060 , 2024a. · arXiv
  4. Junying Chen, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Wanlong Liu, Rongsheng Wang, Jianye Hou, and Benyou Wang. Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925 , 2024b. · arXiv
  5. Cl´ ement Christophe, Praveen K Kanithi, Tathagata Raha, Shadab Khan, and Marco AF Pimentel. Med42-v2: A suite of clinical llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06142 , 2024. · arXiv
  6. Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 , 2025. · arXiv
  7. Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , 2024. · arXiv
  8. Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720 , 2024. · arXiv
  9. Shuyang Jiang, Yusheng Liao, Zhe Chen, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Yu Wang. MedS 3 : Towards medical small language models with self-evolved slow thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12051 , 2025. · arXiv
  10. Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences , 11(14):6421, 2021.
  11. Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146 , 2019. · arXiv
  12. Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Liwei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific data , 3 (1):1-9, 2016.
  13. Chunyang Meng, Shijie Song, Haogang Tong, Maolin Pan, and Yang Yu. Deepscaler: Holistic autoscaling for microservices based on spatiotemporal gnn with adaptive graph learning. In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) , pages 53-65. IEEE, 2023.
  14. Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Cand` es, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393 , 2025. · arXiv
  15. Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. Medmcqa: A large-scale multisubject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In Conference on health, inference, and learning , pages 248-260. PMLR, 2022.
  16. Pengcheng Qiu, Chaoyi Wu, Xiaoman Zhang, Weixiong Lin, Haicheng Wang, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. Towards building multilingual language model for medicine. Nature Communications , 15(1):8384, 2024.
  17. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024.
  18. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138 , 2022. · arXiv
  19. Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Mohamed Amin, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, et al. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models. Nature Medicine , pages 1-8, 2025.
  20. David Vilares and Carlos G´ omez-Rodr´ ıguez. Headqa: A healthcare dataset for complex reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04701 , 2019. · arXiv
  21. Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , 2024.
  22. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  23. Chaoyi Wu, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Weidi Xie, and Yanfeng Wang. Pmcllama: toward building open-source language models for medicine. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , 31(9):1833-1843, 2024.
  24. Juncheng Wu, Wenlong Deng, Xingxuan Li, Sheng Liu, Taomian Mi, Yifan Peng, Ziyang Xu, Yi Liu, Hyunjin Cho, Chang-In Choi, Yihan Cao, Hui Ren, Xiang Li, Xiaoxiao Li, and Yuyin Zhou. Medreason: Eliciting factual medical reasoning steps in llms via knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint , 2025.
  25. Yunfei Xie, Juncheng Wu, Haoqin Tu, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Yongshuo Zong, Qiao Jin, Cihang Xie, and Yuyin Zhou. A preliminary study of o1 in medicine: Are we closer to an ai doctor? arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15277 , 2024. · arXiv
  26. An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115 , 2024. · arXiv
  27. Wenkai Yang, Shuming Ma, Yankai Lin, and Furu Wei. Towards thinking-optimal scaling of testtime compute for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18080 , 2025. · arXiv
  28. Kaiyan Zhang, Sihang Zeng, Ermo Hua, Ning Ding, Zhang-Ren Chen, Zhiyuan Ma, Haoxin Li, Ganqu Cui, Biqing Qi, Xuekai Zhu, et al. Ultramedical: Building specialized generalists in biomedicine. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:26045-26081, 2024.
  29. Yuxin Zuo, Shang Qu, Yifei Li, Zhangren Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Ermo Hua, Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. Medxpertqa: Benchmarking expert-level medical reasoning and understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18362 , 2025. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, X., Wu, J., Liu, H., Tang, X., & Zhou, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417228645
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
test-time scaling, medical reasoning, large language models, medical question answering, overthinking, medical knowledge representation

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