MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07919v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 15:55:30 GMT
• Title: MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence
• Abstract summary: medvigil is a 300-case evaluation suite drawn from four public medical VQA sources.<n>Every gold answer, refusal option, candidate-answer set, paraphrase, false-premise trap, ROI box, and clinical risk tier is clinician-authored.<n>We report seven correctness-conditioned audit metrics that summarise into the medvigil Composite Score (MCS)<n>The independent radiologist scores MCS 83.3 at silent-failure rate 5.8%, leaving a 14.1-point composite headroom above the strongest audited model.
• Score: 24.517280048376758
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Medical vision--language models (VLMs) are usually evaluated on intact image--question pairs, but trustworthy clinical use requires a stronger property: a model must recognise when the evidential basis for an answer has failed. We study this through silent failures under perturbed evidence, where a vision-required medical question is paired with a false premise, wording perturbation, knowledge-only rewrite, or ROI-corrupted image, yet the model returns a fluent non-refusal answer. We introduce medvigil, a 300-case evaluation suite drawn from four public medical VQA sources, supervised end to end by four board-certified radiologists: every gold answer, refusal option, candidate-answer set, paraphrase, false-premise trap, ROI box, and clinical risk tier is clinician-authored. Two attending radiologists annotate every case in parallel, a senior radiologist consolidates the released manifest, and a separate fourth radiologist independent of construction answers every probe to provide the human reference baseline. The release contains 2{,}556 MCQ probes, 240 counterfactual triplets, physician-adjudicated risk-tier and answerability flags, ROI boxes, and a paired open-ended variant. We report seven correctness-conditioned audit metrics that summarise into the medvigil Composite Score (MCS), and audit 16 vision-capable models plus two text-only baselines. The independent radiologist scores MCS 83.3 at silent-failure rate 5.8%, leaving a 14.1-point composite headroom above the strongest audited model (Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.2). The benchmark and evaluation harness are publicly released.

Related papers

• ConRub-Med: Reinforcement Learning with Consensus Rubrics for Open-Ended Medical Question Answering [33.27644708906731]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been especially effective in mathematics and coding.<n>We introduce ConRub-Med to preserve useful distinctions as rubric feedback moves from construction to policy optimization.<n>ConRub-Med ranks first on six of nine benchmarks and the highest medical and generalization averages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T14:48:15Z)
• Confident but Unreliable: A Behavioral Safety Audit of Vision-Language Models on Brain MRI [1.2744523252873352]
  We use brain MRI as a controlled, high-stakes testbed for a broader failure mode in frontier multimodal systems.<n>We present an automatically graded behavioral audit and pilot study of six instruction-tuned vision-language models (VLMs) on 4,102 images.<n>Across models, answer coverage is near-complete, but verbalized-confidence calibration is poor.<n>Open-ended diagnostics show that hallucination and abstention vary separately from multiple-choice accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T18:42:04Z)
• ClinFusion: A Vision-Centric Multimodal LLM System for Holistic Medical Understanding [67.57715989349471]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) hold immense potential to revolutionize clinical practice, yet deploying them in the medical domain is fundamentally a vision-centric challenge.<n>We introduce ClinFusion, a vision-centric MLLM designed for holistic medical understanding.<n>We show that ClinFusion sets a new state-of-the-art across a comprehensive suite of 2D and 3D multimodal medical benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T17:59:49Z)
• NeuroQA: A Large-Scale Image-Grounded Benchmark for 3D Brain MRI Understanding [6.217658756255346]
  NeuroQA is a large-scale benchmark for visual question answering in 3D brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)<n>It spans ages 5-104 and five clinical domains: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, tumors, white matter disease, and neurodevelopment.<n>NeuroQA evaluates 11 clinically grounded reasoning skills across Yes/No, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T21:54:12Z)
• Same Verdict, Different Reasons: LLM-as-a-Judge and Clinician Disagreement on Medical Chatbot Completeness [49.2667937337333]
  We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete patient-facing medical responses.<n>We evaluate three granularities (General-Likert, Analytical-Rubric, Dynamic-Checklist) and three backbone models across two clinician-annotated datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T19:01:55Z)
• ThReadMed-QA: A Multi-Turn Medical Dialogue Benchmark from Real Patient Questions [5.63130104359934]
  ThReadMed-QA is a benchmark of 2,437 fully-answered patient-seeking conversation threads extracted from r/AskDocs.<n>We evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs on a stratified test split of 238 conversations.<n>Even the strongest model, GPT-5, achieves only 41.2% fully-correct responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T20:17:57Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• VinDr-CXR-VQA: A Visual Question Answering Dataset for Explainable Chest X-Ray Analysis with Multi-Task Learning [3.4998703934432682]
  VinDr-CXR-VQA is a large-scale chest X-ray dataset for explainable Medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA) with spatial grounding.<n>The dataset contains 17,597 question-answer pairs across 4,394 images, each annotated with radiologist-verified bounding boxes and clinical reasoning explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-01T11:17:44Z)
• Evaluating Reasoning Faithfulness in Medical Vision-Language Models using Multimodal Perturbations [19.488236277427358]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process.<n>We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T09:28:22Z)
• EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
  Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z)
• MedOmni-45°: A Safety-Performance Benchmark for Reasoning-Oriented LLMs in Medicine [69.08855631283829]
  We introduce Med Omni-45 Degrees, a benchmark designed to quantify safety-performance trade-offs under manipulative hint conditions.<n>It contains 1,804 reasoning-focused medical questions across six specialties and three task types, including 500 from MedMCQA.<n>Results show a consistent safety-performance trade-off, with no model surpassing the diagonal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:38:16Z)
• CARES: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Trustworthiness in Medical Vision Language Models [92.04812189642418]
  We introduce CARES and aim to evaluate the Trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across the medical domain. We assess the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across five dimensions, including trustfulness, fairness, safety, privacy, and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T04:07:09Z)

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.