Where Grounding Accuracy Lives on the IoU Curve: Label-Free Inference-Time Boundary Refinement

Vision--language models can identify the correct referent while returning an imprecise bounding box. We study whether a frozen direct-answer model can use its own prediction to allocate one additional localized observation without accessing target annotations at inference. Label-free precision refinement (LFPR) routes predicted-small regions to a higher-resolution pass, re-grounds the expression inside a context crop, admits a candidate only under fixed geometric guards, and returns a fixed coordinate-wise midpoint. We report results across three evidence tiers. On 31,921 retrospective Ref-L4 expressions, LFPR raises mAcc$_{0.5:0.95}$ from 72.947\% to 76.013\% (Acc@0.5 88.531\%$\to$89.725\%, Acc@0.9 55.788\%$\to$61.142\%). A frozen transfer to 30,969 RefCOCO/RefCOCO+/RefCOCOg expressions improves every dataset at Acc@0.5, mAcc, and mean IoU (pooled mAcc $+0.645$, Acc@0.5 $+0.817$), while Acc@0.9 is unchanged overall: routing alone gains $+1.162$ points there, but crop, guards, and fusion give back $-1.192$, offsetting rather than showing no strict-IoU effect. A prospective, image-disjoint Flickr30K Entities evaluation improves every endpoint (mAcc $+0.973$, Acc@0.9 $+1.022$), more strongly under a single-box variant (mAcc $+2.575$, Acc@0.9 $+3.689$). The same operator applied to two released grounding specialists improves every endpoint (Acc@0.9 $+1.569$/$+6.716$ for EGM-4B/8B) at roughly twice the latency, composing with specialist training rather than replacing it. A genuine unguarded control (guard removed from the same candidates) underperforms the incumbent on every metric, showing the guard is load-bearing. Together, these results show that referent selection and boundary precision are partially separable, with different components moving opposing regions of the IoU curve -- behavior a single threshold cannot reveal.

Don't Peek at the Answer: Outcome-Masked Group Relative Policy Optimization for Label-Free RLVR

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves LLM reasoning but typically relies on ground-truth (GT) answers, limiting scalability. Voting-based label-free RLVR replace gold supervision with answer-level consensus from model samples. However, collapse arises when the same answer-level signal is used both to estimate rewards and to drive token-level policy optimization, encouraging the model to directly reinforce answer tokens rather than improve reasoning. We propose OM-GRPO, a label-free RLVR framework that decouples reward estimation from policy optimization. OM-GRPO masks gradients on the answer span while retaining answer-level rewards through a soft consensus signal, shifting optimization pressure away from answer tokens. We further introduce Contrast-Augmented Reward, which refines reward estimation via low-cost pairwise comparisons over existing trajectories without additional rollouts. Across diverse reasoning benchmarks and three LLM backbones, OM-GRPO consistently outperforms existing label-free RLVR methods and matches supervised GT-reward training with stable optimization. This stability is particularly beneficial in the Test-Time Training setting, where OM-GRPO surpasses majority voting by 4.24 points.

Towards Practical Algorithm Selection for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation in Medical Imaging

Numerous unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) algori-thms exist, but for clinical practice, selecting the best-suited one along with proper hyperparameters often remains unclear, as the unlabeled deployment (target) domain prevents direct evaluation. We propose a label-free criterion that jointly selects the algorithm and hyperparameters for UDA. Given a pool of candidate models from multiple algorithms trained with different hyperparameters, our approach scores each candidate against an agreement reference, and selects the one with the highest score. The agreement reference is constructed in two levels without using target labels. First, we leverage multiple label-free selection signals, using each to nominate a model within every algorithm. Second, the nominated models are aggregated across algorithms to form a reference prediction for each unlabeled target sample. The candidate whose predictions agree most with this reference is then selected for deployment. Experimental results on four brain MRI and four chest X-ray datasets across seven clinically relevant transfer scenarios show that our method achieves better selection performance than other methods and remains effective across different algorithm pools. Our approach takes a step towards practical, label-free algorithm selection for clinical deployment of UDA.