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.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.