arXiv Machine Learning By Haoxu Huang, Narges Razavian

Uncertainty of Vision Medical Foundation Models

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

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 Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 21

Isotonic Conformal Prediction

arXiv:2607. 16675v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A point prediction that is well calibrated on average can still be systematically biased conditional on its own value, undermining its use in downstream decision-making.

By Daniel Bensimon, Sean Xiang Yu, Eric D. Kolaczyk, Archer Y. Yang
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 27

MVC-Bench: Benchmarking Calibration of Medical Vision-Language Models

MVC-Bench is a calibration-focused benchmark for medical vision‑language models, evaluating how well these models express confidence across different modalities, backbones, and domain shifts. It tests robustness to modality, backbone, and domain changes, the effectiveness of calibration and prompt‑tuning strategies, and stability under prompt‑template and random‑seed variations. The benchmark includes 1638 experiments, reporting accuracy and Expected Calibration Error (ECE) along with other calibration metrics, and introduces a simple train‑time calibration method, Multi‑Class Margin (MCM) regularization, that achieves the lowest ECE in most settings.