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.
By Arnisa Fazla, Alberto Testoni, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Barbara Plank, Iacer Calixto
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
By Maryam Tahermazandarani, Adnan Mahmood, Fahmida Islam, Quan Z. Sheng
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.
By Reza Khanmohammadi, Kundan Thind, Mohammad M. Ghassemi
The paper examines whether model uncertainty aligns with human disagreement on vision tasks. Using multi‑annotator datasets (FER+ and CIFAR‑10H), the authors find that pretrained models rarely reflect the ambiguity humans perceive, with weak correlations between model confidence and human disagreement. Predictive multiplicity offers only modest improvement, indicating that common uncertainty metrics fail to flag ambiguous cases.
The paper introduces a decision‑aware evaluation protocol for medical image segmentation uncertainty that separates uncertainty estimation from deferral policy and assesses their joint performance under fixed review budgets. It reports metrics such as fixed‑budget error reduction, risk‑coverage behavior, region‑level review proxies, structural failure modes, and sensitivity to review assumptions. Experiments on retinal vessel, skin lesion, and polyp segmentation with various backbones and uncertainty estimators show that estimator rankings vary with review unit, uncertainty target, and cost model, and that boundary and thin‑structure failures are partly due to annotation ambiguity.
By Saket Maganti, Shreyank N Gowda
The paper introduces a neurosymbolic verification framework that audits the internal consistency of vision-language models (VLMs) when generating radiology reports. By autoformalizing free‑text findings into structured propositional evidence and using an SMT solver (Z3) alongside a clinical knowledge base, the system determines whether each diagnostic claim is entailed, hallucinated, or omitted. Evaluation on seven VLMs across five chest X‑ray benchmarks reveals distinct reasoning failure modes—such as conservative observation and stochastic hallucination—that traditional metrics miss, and shows that enforcing solver‑backed entailment can eliminate unsupported hallucinations and improve diagnostic soundness and precision.
By Vikash Singh, Debargha Ganguly, Haotian Yu, Chengwei Zhou, Prerna Singh, Brandon Lee, Vipin Chaudhary, Gourav Datta
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
By Yifan Zhang, Rahmatollah Beheshti
The paper investigates how pre‑training strategy, dataset size, and domain affect uncertainty estimation in vision medical foundation models. It compares point‑prediction calibration with conformal (region) prediction across retinal, histopathological, and chest X‑ray models, finding that domain‑specific, self‑supervised pre‑training yields better calibration and more efficient conformal sets. The study shows that standard recalibration alone cannot fully reconcile uncertainty differences between models trained on different data sources.
By Haoxu Huang, Narges Razavian
Reference labels used to train medical image classification models are not always as certain as they may appear, and this uncertainty has implications on performance metrics. In this study, we propose...
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.
By Vu Dinh Xuan, Duc-Hai Nguyen, Minh-Dung Dao, Vu Quynh Giao, Quang Hong Nguyen, Binh-Son Hua, Barry O'Sullivan, David Murphy, Hoang D. Nguyen
arXiv:2205. 04599v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for trustworthy AI in healthcare, yet many existing methods rely on technical explanations that are difficult for clinicians and patients to interpret.
By Mohammad Eslami, Solale Tabarestani, Saber Kazeminasab, Ehsan Adeli, Glyn Elwyn, Tobias Elze, Mengyu Wang, Nazlee Zebardast, Lucia Sobrin, Nassir Navab, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, Malek Adjouadi
arXiv:2608.22059v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Pretrained image encoders are central to medical image classification, where expert annotation is costly and task-specific cohorts are often limited....
By Xingtao Lin, Hangqi Ren, Caiwan Sun, You Chen