The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
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. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
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.
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.
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.