arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
arXiv:2603. 21693v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong potential for medical Visual Question Answering (VQA), yet they remain prone to hallucinations, defined as generating responses that contradict the input image, posing serious risks in clinical settings.
The paper introduces ConRad, a reinforcement learning framework that fine‑tunes large vision‑language models to generate calibrated verbalized confidence estimates for radiology reports. ConRad offers both a single report‑level confidence score and a sentence‑level variant, trained with the GRPO algorithm and logarithmic scoring rewards to encourage truthful self‑assessment. Experiments show significant calibration improvements over existing methods, and clinical evaluation indicates that report‑level scores align well with clinicians’ judgments, enabling targeted review of low‑confidence statements.
arXiv:2609.06419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language models (VLMs) require confidence that reflects both answer correctness and patient-specific visual evidence. Recent GRPO-base...
PROVE is a black‑box hallucination detector for medical visual question answering that tailors its verification strategy to each question’s evidential structure. It classifies questions into three regimes, activates a subset of five operators per regime, and calibrates operator importance using deterministic question‑answer features to produce a risk score. On 8048 test samples across three medical VQA benchmarks and four state‑of‑the‑art vision‑language models, PROVE achieves an AUROC of 0.821, surpassing the best baseline by 0.159 with consistent improvements across all models and datasets.
The paper evaluates uncertainty estimation (UE) methods for clinical vision‑language models (VLMs) on visual question answering (VQA). Across 8 UE techniques and 12 VLMs, UE quality tracks model accuracy, degrading where performance is weakest, and fails to signal uncertainty when models are stressed by hiding the correct answer (NOTA perturbations). However, UE on unperturbed inputs reliably predicts which predictions will collapse under NOTA, suggesting UE can diagnose model fragility.
arXiv:2608. 10964v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) has enabled medical Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to produce Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning for visual question answering, yet these models suffer from $\textit{confidence miscalibration}$---a systematic gap between expressed certainty and actual diagnostic accuracy that undermines clinical trust.
arXiv:2609.26093v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models can answer spatial relation questions confidently even when the image supports an incompatible relation. We formulate relation-g...
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.
arXiv:2606. 15910v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A vision-language model can answer a question about a chest radiograph or a pathology slide fluently and confidently while barely using the image, relying instead on language priors.
arXiv:2603. 24058v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Object hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) severely compromises their reliability in real-world applications, posing a critical barrier to their deployment in high-stakes scenarios such as autonomous driving and medical image analysis.
The paper investigates how Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) often report high confidence even after self‑correcting or arriving at wrong answers, a phenomenon the authors attribute to the verbalized confidence being largely independent of the model’s reasoning trajectory. By analyzing content variation, token masking, and hesitation markers, the authors demonstrate that confidence does not adequately reflect the actual reasoning process and that calibration training can sometimes worsen this disconnect. To address this blind spot, they introduce the Trajectory‑Grounding Score (TGS) in two forms—TGS‑self and TGS‑pair—and propose TGS‑Bench, a suite of 10 benchmarks that reveal divergences between conventional calibration metrics and trajectory‑grounded confidence.