This work introduces EVADE (Evidence-Verified Agentic Diagnosis with Escape), an inferential, non-training method that enhances the safety of deploying a single frozen VLM by verifying gate consistency across different image views rather than re-reading the model's own text.
Abstract
Medical vision-language models (VLMs) can achieve high accuracy but remain unreliable: they are systematically overconfident, benefit little from test-time reasoning, and lack the ability to reliably calibrate trust in their own responses. We introduce EVADE (Evidence-Verified Agentic Diagnosis with Escape), an inferential, non-training method that enhances the safety of deploying a single frozen VLM. EVADE responds and, when uncertain, localises the region most diagnostically relevant, re-answers on a zoomed view, and commits only when both the entire image and the zoomed view responses agree; otherwise, it abstains. To directly address verification hallucination in single-model self-checking, our main idea is to verify gate consistency across different image views rather than re-reading the model's own text. Experimental evaluation on VQA-RAD, SLAKE, and PathVQA using Qwen2.5-VL-7B reports that EVADE is the only method that simultaneously improves both calibration and selective risk while maintaining accuracy, reducing expected calibration error (ECE) by up to 45% compared to zero-shot. Chain-of-thought, self-consistency, and self-verification all fail at least one axis. A grounding analysis reports that self-proposed regions perform better at diagnostic structure localisation than centres or random crops. However, a 7B VLM cannot use this localisation to revise answers. Therefore, reliability gains come from the consistency gate and calibrated abstention.
Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of...
Many medical conditions require diagnosis through detailed, multi-context clinical assessment rather than from visual appearance alone. Despite this, vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly queried to interpret images in ways that touch on medical or diagnostic judgments, raising safety concerns when such infere...
Karan Dua, Amit Agarwal, Hitesh Laxmichand Patel et al.· 0 citations
A calibrated Vision-Language Model (VLM) can repeatedly self-correct, say"Wait, I should recheck,"arrive at the wrong answer, and still report high confidence. We find that this occurs because verbalized confidence is largely trajectory-independent in the VLMs and calibration methods we evaluate. We examine this throug...
Jisoo Yang, Jaeho Han, T. Pham et al.· 0 citations
Verdict-only evaluation does not reveal whether a vision-language model (VLM) used the visual evidence that should support its decision. We study this problem in web-agent guardrails, where a VLM judges whether on-screen text conflicts with a user instruction. We introduce Mind2Web-Injection, a benchmark of 9,954 instr...
HallDetect, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection, is presented, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection that is evaluated not only on summarization but across a broader range of source-grounded generation settings.
Achir Oukelmoun, N. Semmar, Gaël de Chalendar· 0 citations
Vision-language models (VLMs) frequently fail at visual change reasoning, even when their vision encoders contain sufficient information. We observe that correct VLM outputs tend to contain explicit verbal evidence (object names, colors, spatial locations) that supports the claimed change, while incorrect outputs often...
Youdi Li· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.