arXiv:2606. 24115v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are prone to hallucination, which remains a major barrier to their safe deployment in clinical practice.
arXiv:2604. 08941v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answering binary presence questions on chest radiographs can fail in two linked ways: they are confidently wrong, and they change answers when a clinically equivalent question is rephrased.
arXiv:2604. 27720v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to medical visual question answering (Med-VQA), yet whether they can \emph{localize} the evidence behind their answers---a prerequisite for clinical auditability---is poorly characterized.
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.
arXiv:2605. 18419v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can couple visual perception with open-ended clinical reasoning, making them attractive for computational histopathology.
VisionQ is a new benchmark for qualitative analysis in computer vision that evaluates vision‑language models (VLMs) on criterion‑conditioned visual discrimination. It is built from over 1,800 peer‑reviewed comparison figures in CVPR and ICCV papers, linking each image crop to author‑stated visual claims through 3,911 hand‑annotated data points. The benchmark includes a 51‑leaf taxonomy of visual criteria, a protocol that hides method identities and reports accuracy per criterion, and a DPO‑tuned Gemma‑4‑E4B judge that improves accuracy on a held‑out test set.
Current evaluation protocols for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in Radiology Report Generation (RRG) rely on report-level metrics that measure lexical overlap or aggregate clinical correctness. However, such metrics do not test whether individual diagnostic statements stem from the actual pathological evidence visible in the image.
Med-AR introduces two autoregressive vision‑language models, Med‑AR‑8B and Med‑AR‑2B, pretrained on structured radiology reports, abnormality‑focused text, and region annotations to address long‑tailed chest X‑ray classification. The models outperform existing contrastive, self‑supervised, and supervised encoders—including Med‑CLIP, CheXFound, EVA‑Base, ARK, and BioViL‑T—across PadChest, MIMIC‑CXR, and CheXpert, achieving higher mean AUROC and AUPRC for head, medium, and tail findings and lower excess area under the risk‑coverage curve. Med‑AR also demonstrates improved selective‑prediction performance, with Med‑AR‑8B raising tail‑label mean AUPRC on MIMIC‑CXR from 0.1033 to 0.1441 and Med‑AR‑2B delivering the strongest discrimination on PadChest.
arXiv:2607. 04223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination, and existing detectors return a single answer-level score that does not indicate which sentence is unsupported, or why.
arXiv:2609.13288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be i...
arXiv:2604.02543v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in clinical decision support, more than accuracy is required: knowing when to trust thei...
arXiv:2606. 29809v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination detection has become a pressing requirement for trustworthy AI deployment at scale.
The study evaluates the robustness of medical vision‑language models for tuberculosis screening on chest X‑rays by testing them across multiple datasets, prompts, and evaluation settings. Three specialized models (BioMedCLIP, CheXficient, MedSigLIP) and a general OpenCLIP model were audited on 12,200 images, producing 244,000 model–image–prompt scores. Results show that no model consistently outperforms others across all cohorts and reliability criteria, with prompt changes and control group composition significantly affecting AUROC, and that high training‑set performance does not reliably transfer to external cohorts.