Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11196 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866914143262474240 |
|---|---|
| author | Moll, Johannes Graf, Markus Lemke, Tristan Lenhart, Nicolas Truhn, Daniel Delbrouck, Jean-Benoit Pan, Jiazhen Rueckert, Daniel Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. |
| author_facet | Moll, Johannes Graf, Markus Lemke, Tristan Lenhart, Nicolas Truhn, Daniel Delbrouck, Jean-Benoit Pan, Jiazhen Rueckert, Daniel Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. |
| contents | Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's $τ_b=0.670$), moderate alignment for fidelity ($τ_b=0.387$), and weak alignment for confidence tone ($τ_b=0.091$), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality can be decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_11196 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Evaluating Reasoning Faithfulness in Medical Vision-Language Models using Multimodal Perturbations Moll, Johannes Graf, Markus Lemke, Tristan Lenhart, Nicolas Truhn, Daniel Delbrouck, Jean-Benoit Pan, Jiazhen Rueckert, Daniel Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. Computation and Language Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's $τ_b=0.670$), moderate alignment for fidelity ($τ_b=0.387$), and weak alignment for confidence tone ($τ_b=0.091$), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality can be decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy. |
| title | Evaluating Reasoning Faithfulness in Medical Vision-Language Models using Multimodal Perturbations |
| topic | Computation and Language Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11196 |