MedObvious: Exposing the Medical Moravec's Paradox in VLMs via Clinical Triage

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23501v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:59:54 GMT
• Title: MedObvious: Exposing the Medical Moravec's Paradox in VLMs via Clinical Triage
• Abstract summary: Vision Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used for tasks like medical report generation and visual question answering.<n>In clinical practice, interpretation begins with pre-diagnostic sanity checks.<n>Existing benchmarks largely assume this step is solved, and therefore miss a critical failure mode.<n>We introduce MedObvious, a 1,880-task benchmark that isolates input validation as a set-level consistency capability.
• Score: 20.835664121303534
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Vision Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used for tasks like medical report generation and visual question answering. However, fluent diagnostic text does not guarantee safe visual understanding. In clinical practice, interpretation begins with pre-diagnostic sanity checks: verifying that the input is valid to read (correct modality and anatomy, plausible viewpoint and orientation, and no obvious integrity violations). Existing benchmarks largely assume this step is solved, and therefore miss a critical failure mode: a model can produce plausible narratives even when the input is inconsistent or invalid. We introduce MedObvious, a 1,880-task benchmark that isolates input validation as a set-level consistency capability over small multi-panel image sets: the model must identify whether any panel violates expected coherence. MedObvious spans five progressive tiers, from basic orientation/modality mismatches to clinically motivated anatomy/viewpoint verification and triage-style cues, and includes five evaluation formats to test robustness across interfaces. Evaluating 17 different VLMs, we find that sanity checking remains unreliable: several models hallucinate anomalies on normal (negative-control) inputs, performance degrades when scaling to larger image sets, and measured accuracy varies substantially between multiple-choice and open-ended settings. These results show that pre-diagnostic verification remains unsolved for medical VLMs and should be treated as a distinct, safety-critical capability before deployment.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Diagnostic Robustness of Vision-Language Models Under Visual and Textual Perturbations [3.765860543344957]
  We assess the diagnostic robustness of four VLM families under evidence-preserving perturbations.<n>Our results reveal significant vulnerabilities in presentation-order stability, with models exhibiting prediction flips in up to 48.9% of cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T14:09:55Z)
• DriftScope: Measuring The Hidden Effects of Diffusion Model Adaptation [50.584834483403675]
  Adapting pre-trained text-to-image diffusion models, whether to learn new visual concepts or erase unwanted ones, is routinely evaluated on its intended effects alone.<n>We demonstrate that adaptation systematically damages semantically unrelated concepts in ways that aggregate metrics structurally cannot surface.<n>We introduce DriftScope, a prompt-level diagnostic tool that takes any two model checkpoints and returns a ranked list of tokens whose visual concepts have shifted most between them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T20:57:51Z)
• MMBU: A Massive Multi-modal Biomedical Understanding Benchmark to Probe the Perception Capabilities of Vision-Language Models [83.50100003741628]
  Vision and language models (VLMs) hold immense promise to transform biomedical imaging.<n>We introduce the Massive Multimodal Biomedical Understanding (MMBU) benchmark.<n>It is the largest vision and language benchmark to date, covering 35 submodalities with rich structured metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T20:24:47Z)
• Look-Closer-Then-Diagnose: Confidence-Aware Ultrasound VQA via Active Zooming [41.40761036883243]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have significantly advanced medical visual question answering, yet their performance in ultrasound remains suboptimal.<n>We propose a framework specifically designed to consider the sonographer's cognitive workflow.<n>We first introduce a structured Zoom-then-Diagnose paradigm, which replicates the interactive search process to enable lesion-focused reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T19:06:34Z)
• Med-StepBench: A Hierarchical Reasoning Framework for Evaluating Hallucinations in Medical Vision-Language Models [8.20487574753681]
  Existing medical hallucination benchmarks primarily focus on 2D imaging with one-shot diagnostic questions.<n>We introduce Med-StepBench, the first large-scale benchmark for step-wise hallucination detection in 3D oncological PET/CT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T05:26:59Z)
• Is There Knowledge Left to Extract? Evidence of Fragility in Medically Fine-Tuned Vision-Language Models [23.48481783960546]
  We evaluate four paired open-source vision-language models (VLMs) across four medical imaging tasks.<n>We find that performance degrades toward near-random levels as task difficulty increases, indicating limited clinical reasoning.<n>Medical VLM performance is fragile, prompt-dependent, and not reliably improved by domain-specific fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T19:14:03Z)
• Stop Listening to Me! How Multi-turn Conversations Can Degrade Diagnostic Reasoning [12.166175637413637]
  We evaluate 17 large language models (LLMs) across three clinical datasets.<n>We develop a "stick-or-switch" evaluation framework to measure model conviction.<n>Our experiments reveal the conversation tax, where multi-turn interactions consistently degrade performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T00:14:35Z)
• M3CoTBench: Benchmark Chain-of-Thought of MLLMs in Medical Image Understanding [66.78251988482222]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models by encouraging step-by-step intermediate reasoning.<n>Current benchmarks for medical image understanding generally focus on the final answer while ignoring the reasoning path.<n>M3CoTBench aims to foster the development of transparent, trustworthy, and diagnostically accurate AI systems for healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T17:42:27Z)
• Benchmarking Egocentric Clinical Intent Understanding Capability for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [48.95516224614331]
  We introduce MedGaze-Bench, the first benchmark leveraging clinician gaze as a Cognitive Cursor to assess intent understanding across surgery, emergency simulation, and diagnostic interpretation.<n>Our benchmark addresses three fundamental challenges: visual homogeneity of anatomical structures, strict temporal-causal dependencies in clinical, and implicit adherence to safety protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T02:20:40Z)
• Knowing or Guessing? Robust Medical Visual Question Answering via Joint Consistency and Contrastive Learning [34.6490677122246]
  We show that current Medical Vision-Language Models (Med-VLMs) exhibit concerning fragility in Medical Visual Question Answering.<n>We propose Consistency and Contrastive Learning (CCL), which integrates knowledge-anchored consistency learning and bias-aware contrastive learning.<n>CCL achieves SOTA performance on three popular VQA benchmarks and notably improves answer consistency by 50% on the challenging RoMed test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T05:21:19Z)
• SURE-Med: Systematic Uncertainty Reduction for Enhanced Reliability in Medical Report Generation [2.2185034594788164]
  We propose SURE-Med, a unified framework that systematically reduces uncertainty across three critical dimensions: visual, distributional, and contextual.<n>To mitigate visual uncertainty, a Frontal-Aware View Repair Resampling module corrects view annotation errors and adaptively selects informative features from supplementary views.<n>To tackle label distribution uncertainty, we introduce a Token Sensitive Learning objective that enhances the modeling of critical diagnostic sentences.<n>To reduce contextual uncertainty, our Contextual Evidence Filter validates and selectively incorporates prior information that aligns with the current image, effectively suppressing hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-03T09:52:30Z)
• DeVisE: Behavioral Testing of Medical Large Language Models [14.832083455439749]
  DeVisE is a behavioral testing framework for probing fine-grained clinical understanding.<n>We construct a dataset of ICU discharge notes from MIMIC-IV.<n>We evaluate five LLMs spanning general-purpose and medically fine-tuned variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T10:42:22Z)
• SURE-VQA: Systematic Understanding of Robustness Evaluation in Medical VQA Tasks [2.033441577169909]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have great potential in medical tasks, like Visual Question Answering (VQA)<n>Their robustness to distribution shifts on unseen data remains a key concern for safe deployment.<n>We introduce a novel framework, called SURE-VQA, centered around three key requirements to overcome current pitfalls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T13:22:52Z)
• Unsupervised Model Diagnosis [49.36194740479798]
  This paper proposes Unsupervised Model Diagnosis (UMO) to produce semantic counterfactual explanations without any user guidance. Our approach identifies and visualizes changes in semantics, and then matches these changes to attributes from wide-ranging text sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:59:03Z)
• Uncertainty-aware Medical Diagnostic Phrase Identification and Grounding [72.18719355481052]
  We introduce a novel task called Medical Report Grounding (MRG)<n>MRG aims to directly identify diagnostic phrases and their corresponding grounding boxes from medical reports in an end-to-end manner.<n>We propose uMedGround, a robust and reliable framework that leverages a multimodal large language model to predict diagnostic phrases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T07:41:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.