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...
arXiv:2609. 31450v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language model (VLM) post-training is commonly evaluated through answer accuracy.
arXiv:2606. 20244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often underperform on evidence intensive tasks because decisive visual evidence are small, localized, and easy to overlook, leading to failures in evidence readout even when high-level reasoning is intact.
The paper introduces a free, label‑free visual evidence signal that improves fine‑grained vision‑language reasoning. By selecting image crops that maximize the model’s answer distribution peak, the method locates answer‑bearing regions without training or annotations, boosting accuracy from 70 % to 85 %. The evidence gap also complements model confidence, enabling better correctness prediction and error flagging.
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...
The study evaluates whether signals from a frozen vision‑language model, InstructBLIP, can reliably indicate answerability in visual question answering. Using a 10K subset of UNK‑VQA, the authors test predictive uncertainty, cross‑modal alignment, visual grounding, visual dependence, internal representations, and learned probes, finding that all signals yield weak discrimination (AUROC 0.50‑0.54). Even interventions that remove question‑relevant visual evidence or increase probe capacity do not substantially improve answerability detection, underscoring that visual dependence and related metrics are not robust proxies for answerability.
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.
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...
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.
arXiv:2608. 13167v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When visual evidence is occluded or chaotic, models should abstain.
The paper introduces Evidence-Conditioned Dependency Distillation (ECDD), a method that trains compact medical vision‑language models to rely on visual evidence by pairing each training image with a control matched to the evidence level and distilling the teacher’s drop in answer margin across the pair. ECDD preserves task accuracy while making answer support more sensitive to evidence removal, outperforming standard knowledge distillation and alignment baselines in three medical VQA settings. The approach applies to various evidence types, such as clinical regions, surgical instruments, or whole‑image content.
The paper introduces TerraAgent, a training‑free framework that enhances remote sensing visual question answering by integrating three modules: GDR for demonstration retrieval, MACE for evidence‑typed sub‑question decomposition, and CVA for counterfactual evidence auditing. It demonstrates significant improvements on multiple benchmarks, raising accuracy, visual‑dependency scores, and reducing prior‑only answers and hallucinations without fine‑tuning.