Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of eight uncertainty estimation (UE) methods across twelve clinical vision-language models (VLMs) in the context of visual question-answering (VQA). The findings reveal that UE does not inherently indicate reliability; instead, it correlates with model accuracy and fails to provide trustworthy signals when model performance declines. Notably, while accuracy drops significantly under stress conditions, UE remains stable, suggesting that it can serve as a diagnostic tool for identifying fragile predictions in clinical settings.
Uncertainty estimation in clinical VLMs fails to signal when models are unreliable, but it can predict which predictions are likely to fail under stress.
Safe deployment of clinical vision-language models (VLMs) requires reliable uncertainty estimation (UE): a signal indicating when predictions should be trusted or escalated to a clinician. We test whether current UE methods actually deliver this signal. Benchmarking 8 methods across 12 VLMs on clinical visual question-answering (VQA), we find that UE quality is not an intrinsic property of the UE method: it tracks model accuracy, degrading precisely where the model performance is weakest, and therefore where reliability is most needed. When we stress-test models by hiding the correct option among the multiple-choice answers (NOTA perturbations), accuracy collapses while uncertainty barely changes, leaving models systematically miscalibrated. Yet, we find that uncertainty on the unperturbed input reliably anticipates which predictions will collapse under NOTA, indicating that UE in current VLMs carries diagnostic information about model fragility. Our results position UE as a diagnostic tool for identifying fragile predictions and motivate perturbation-based evaluation as a path toward safe clinical deployment.
