PathView-Bench: Can Multimodal Large Language Models Achieve Fine-grained Multiscale Understanding of Pathology Images?

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to analyze pathology images. However, dominant multimodal benchmarks in pathology mainly score final diagnostic answers, captions, or reports. These evaluations provide limited insight into whether a model understands the multiscale visual content needed for pathology reasoning and decision-making. We introduce PathVU, a vision-anchored benchmark for fine-grained and multiscale visual understanding in computational pathology. Built from 23 public pathology imaging datasets with human-supervised labels and spatial annotations, PathVU evaluates MLLM understanding in two fields of view: Region FOV for high-resolution local regions and Slide FOV for macro whole-slide views. By converting raw annotations into deterministic task targets, PathVU enables programmatic scoring of region localization, visual recognition, quantity estimation, spatial reasoning, and insufficient-context judgment. The benchmark contains 14 VQA-style tasks, 61,673 images, and 308,070 samples across 28 organs and 7,253,526 annotations. Evaluating 18 representative general-purpose, medical-domain, and pathology-oriented MLLMs, we observe substantial limitations even in advanced models on fine-grained visual tasks across multiscale pathology images. PathVU provides a reproducible basis for developing and evaluating pathology MLLMs with explicit multiscale visual understanding.

Beyond Counts: A Distributional Robustness Margin For Pathology Foundation Models

Pathology foundation models are approaching clinical deployment, yet remain vulnerable to systematic non-biological variation across centres. Differences in tissue preparation, staining and scanning are strongly encoded in their representations, enabling shortcut learning and weakening generalisation across cohorts and institutions. The Robustness Index (RI) quantifies whether local representation geometry is dominated by biology or by non-biological variation, but its count-based formulation discards distance information. We show that adding distance weights changes little because the deeper limitation lies in RI's pooled, fixed-neighbourhood design, which obscures sample-level heterogeneity and effectively evaluates only a model-dependent subset of samples. We introduce the Cross-confounder Robustness Margin (CRoMa), a sample-resolved measure that directly compares distances to cross-confounder biological matches and same-confounder biological distractors. CRoMa recasts robustness as a cohort-wide margin distribution rather than a single pooled score. We evaluated frozen representations from 20 tile-level encoders across three benchmarks and 4 slide-level encoders on a fourth. Rankings by median CRoMa were broadly consistent across datasets, while the underlying distributions revealed substantial within-model heterogeneity. Every tile encoder retained a confounder-dominated lower tail, whose prevalence and severity varied markedly across models. These distinct robustness profiles frame model selection as a Pareto trade-off between typical and lower-tail robustness. Higher CRoMa was also associated with smaller shortcut-induced performance drops after supervised adaptation. By turning representation geometry into a distributional robustness readout that anticipates downstream shortcut susceptibility, CRoMa provides a principled basis for robustness assessment and model selection.