Cross-Model Agreement as a Deployment-Time Reliability Signal for Automatic Polyp Segmentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10495v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:32:43 GMT
• Title: Cross-Model Agreement as a Deployment-Time Reliability Signal for Automatic Polyp Segmentation
• Abstract summary: In real-time colonoscopy, ground-truth annotations are unavailable at inference, so polyp segmentation models can fail silently.<n>We propose Referee-Based Quality Estimation (RBQE), a reference-free framework measuring agreement between a primary segmentation model and an independently trained referee on the same image.
• Score: 0.639901418243611
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In real-time colonoscopy, ground-truth annotations are unavailable at inference, so polyp segmentation models can fail silently. We propose Referee-Based Quality Estimation (RBQE), a reference-free framework measuring agreement between a primary segmentation model and an independently trained referee on the same image. RBQE is evaluated on a standardized 1,223-image external benchmark drawn from four public datasets, using four referee configurations chosen to separate two design axes: referee independence and architectural diversity. Using a common Agreement Dice descriptor, a same-architecture referee differing from the primary model only in random initialization already yields a useful reliability signal (ROC-AUC = 0.923), showing that independent training alone is sufficient. Cross-architecture referees improve further: SegFormer-B0 achieves the strongest performance (ROC-AUC = 0.960), significantly outperforming the same-architecture control and UNet++, and exceeding a representative Test-Time Augmentation baseline by 0.055 ROC-AUC under an identical protocol, whereas a prompt-coupled MedSAM referee underperforms despite maximal architectural diversity. Because empty-mask agreement is trivially separable, we also report a restricted evaluation excluding such cases: ROC-AUC falls to 0.876 (SegFormer-B0, 1,046 images) and 0.783 (same-architecture control, 975 images), yet RBQE's margin over both baselines widens on this identical subset. RBQE additionally increases the mean Dice of retained predictions as low-agreement cases are progressively rejected, supporting selective prediction, and requires only one additional deterministic referee forward pass at inference. Our study therefore supports cross-model agreement as a practical, interpretable reliability framework for automated polyp segmentation.

Related papers

• CUSP: Decomposable Collective Uncertainty for Multi-Agent Multimodal Reasoning [6.428392127849263]
  We present CUSP, a training-free uncertainty framework that maps multiple VLM responses to a shared semantic response space.<n>We report two complementary system-level signals: collective uncertainty, the dispersion of the pooled opinion, and Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD)<n>In static multi-VLM ensembles, collective uncertainty is the strongest signal in the small-model regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T20:27:47Z)
• Architecture-Dependent Causal Transfer of Activation States Across Large Language Models [51.56484100374058]
  Internal language activation states can be transferred causally between different large language models.<n>Injecting projected activations into a target model during generation produces a statistically significant, preregistered causal effect.<n>We conclude that end-to-end activation-state transfer between LLMs, as currently implemented, is architecture-dependent rather than universal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T09:53:27Z)
• SVR: Self-Verifying Refinement via Joint Verdict-Confidence Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Test-Time Compute [62.3458279176813]
  Self-Verifying Refinement is an oracle-free multi-turn reinforcement learning framework.<n>It learns to use self-verification as a compute-control policy.<n>It achieves a macro-average accuracy of 0.563 with only 2.99 inference turns on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T16:20:58Z)
• When LLMs Agree, Are They Right? Auditing Self-Consistency and Cross-Model Agreement as Confidence Signals [0.0]
  LLM-as-judge is increasingly the default for evaluating AI systems in enterprise pipelines.<n>We show that consistency -- agreement among judges, or a model's own samples -- indicates correctness.<n>We ask when agreement is nonetheless a usable proxy, in a large-scale cross-runner study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T02:46:51Z)
• Multimodal Learning on Low-Quality Data with Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration [72.0672328514289]
  Multimodal learning often grapples with the challenge of low-quality data.<n>We propose a unified framework, termed Conformal Predictive Self-Calibration.<n>Our framework consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T14:48:52Z)
• When Should a Language Model Trust Itself? Same-Model Self-Verification as a Conditional Confidence Signal [0.0]
  Self-verification prompting a model to audit its own predicted answer is a plausible confidence signal for selective prediction, but its practical value remains unclear.<n>We evaluate self-verification against two such baselines, LL-AVG and LL-SUM, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA-MC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T20:15:33Z)
• CDRRM: Contrast-Driven Rubric Generation for Reliable and Interpretable Reward Modeling [61.75914342638658]
  CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Reward Model) is a framework for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment.<n>This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T07:15:23Z)
• Learning More from Less: Unlocking Internal Representations for Benchmark Compression [37.69575776639016]
  We introduce REPCORE, which aligns heterogeneous hidden states into a unified latent space to construct representative coresets.<n>Experiments on five benchmarks and over 200 models show consistent gains over output-based baselines in ranking correlation and estimation accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T13:11:39Z)
• How Reliable are Confidence Estimators for Large Reasoning Models? A Systematic Benchmark on High-Stakes Domains [7.845652284569666]
  miscalibration of Large Reasoning Models undermines their reliability in high-stakes domains.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Model Confidence estimation Benchmark (RMCB), a public resource of 347,496 reasoning traces from six popular LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T01:55:48Z)
• Model Correlation Detection via Random Selection Probing [62.093777777813756]
  Existing similarity-based methods require access to model parameters or produce scores without thresholds.<n>We introduce Random Selection Probing (RSP), a hypothesis-testing framework that formulates model correlation detection as a statistical test.<n>RSP produces rigorous p-values that quantify evidence of correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:40:26Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)

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.