AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

PathReportEval: A Systematic Benchmark for Pathology Report Generation

PathReportEval is a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework for pathology report generation from whole-slide images. It evaluates four methods on three datasets (TCGA, HistAI, REG 2025) using three pathology foundation encoders. The key contribution is the Clinical Report Quality Score (CRQS), which measures factual correctness across four dimensions: clinical fact coverage, key information recall, hallucination rate, and clinical discordance. Experiments show traditional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are weakly correlated with clinical accuracy, while CRQS reveals meaningful differences.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Suryakant Singh, Sejuti Majumder, Beatrice Knudsen, Joel Saltz, Prateek Prasanna

-->

[Submitted on 20 Jul 2026]

Title:PathReportEval: A Systematic Benchmark for Pathology Report Generation

View a PDF of the paper titled PathReportEval: A Systematic Benchmark for Pathology Report Generation, by Suryakant Singh and 4 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Pathology report generation from whole-slide images (WSIs) is a rapidly growing multimodal learning problem, yet progress is difficult to measure because existing studies use heterogeneous datasets, model settings, visual encoders, and evaluation protocols. Moreover, commonly used natural language generation metrics, including BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR, primarily reward lexical similarity and often fail to detect clinically consequential errors such as omitted diagnoses, hallucinated findings, or discordant tumor attributes.

We present a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework for pathology report generation. The benchmark evaluates four representative methods across three datasets (TCGA, HistAI, and REG 2025) using three pathology foundation encoders (CONCHv1.5, UNI2-h, and H-Optimus-1). Our framework standardizes preprocessing, feature extraction, training, decoding, and evaluation, enabling fair comparison across models while providing a modular platform for integrating new methods, datasets, and encoders.

A central contribution is the Clinical Report Quality Score (CRQS), a clinically grounded metric for evaluating factual correctness. CRQS maps reference and generated reports into structured clinical attributes and measures four complementary dimensions: clinical fact coverage, key information recall, hallucination rate, and clinical discordance, producing both an overall score and interpretable sub-scores.

Experiments demonstrate that conventional language-generation metrics are weakly aligned with clinical correctness and frequently overestimate report quality. In contrast, CRQS reveals clinically meaningful differences between models and encoders that lexical metrics fail to capture. Together, the benchmark, public plug-and-play framework, and CRQS establish a reproducible foundation for rigorous evaluation of pathology report generation.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2607.18448 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2607.18448v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.18448

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Suryakant Singh [view email] [v1] Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:59:47 UTC (1,022 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled PathReportEval: A Systematic Benchmark for Pathology Report Generation, by Suryakant Singh and 4 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-07

Change to browse by:

cs cs.CV

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)