Reliable deployment of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in radiology requires validation metrics that go beyond surface-level text similarity to ensure clinical fidelity and demographic fairness. This paper investigates a critical blind spot in current model evaluation: the use of decoding strategies that lead to high aggregate token-overlap scores despite succumbing to template collapse, in which models generate only repetitive, safe generic text and omit clinical terminology. Unaddressed, this blind spot can lead to metric gaming, where models that perform well on benchmarks prove clinically uninformative. Instead, we advocate for lexical diversity measures to check model generations for clinical specificity. We introduce Clinical Association Displacement (CAD), a vocabulary-level framework that quantifies shifts in demographic-based word associations in generated reports. Weighted Association Erasure (WAE) aggregates these shifts to measure the clinical signal loss across demographic groups. We show that deterministic decoding produces high levels of semantic erasure, while stochastic sampling generates diverse outputs but risks introducing new bias, motivating a fundamental rethink of how "optimal" reporting is defined.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Clinical interpretation of CAD. Each point is a vocabulary term, mapped from its demographic association in the reference corpus ( zref , x-axis) to its association in predictions ( zpred , y-axis). Points near the diagonal (gray band) indicate stable associations, while off-diagonal points highlight terms whose demographic association has shifted, reflecting erasure, new bias, or bias flips.
Figure 2: (a) Clinical performance comparison (w/ Template Diversity %). (b) Global lexical shift across inference strategies. (c) Δ WAE successfully captures the semantic shifts caused by sex-skewed training.
Table 2: External validation confirms the persistence of the erasure-versus-bias trade-off using LLaVA-Rad with different decoding strategies Text similarity metrics (BERTScore, ROUGE etc.) are comparable ( Δ≤2% , unshown), while Diversity metrics show clear differences in template usage (Div. Temp.) and erasure rates. (NB: New Bias; BF: Bias Flip)
Figure 3: Ablation : Sweeping pdisp⋆ preserves relative model ranking: CAD detects more emergent stereotypes in stochastic outputs across the full range of significance levels.
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise in drafting radiology reports, yet they frequently suffer from logical inconsistencies, generating diagnostic impressions unsupported by their own perceptual findings or missing logically entailed conclusions. Standard lexical metrics heavily penalize clinical paraphrasing and fail to capture these deductive failures in reference-free settings. Toward guarantees for clinical reasoning, we introduce a neurosymbolic verification framework that deterministically audits the internal consistency of VLM-generated reports. Our pipeline autoformalizes free-text radiographic findings into structured propositional evidence, utilizing an SMT solver (Z3) and a clinical knowledge base to verify whether each diagnostic claim is mathematically entailed, hallucinated, or omitted. Evaluating seven VLMs across five chest X-ray benchmarks, our verifier exposes distinct reasoning failure modes, such as conservative observation and stochastic hallucination, that remain invisible to traditional metrics. On labeled datasets, enforcing solver-backed entailment acts as a rigorous post-hoc guarantee, systematically eliminating unsupported hallucinations to significantly increase diagnostic soundness and precision in generative clinical assistants.
Reliable evaluation of generated radiology reports requires strict clinical accuracy, as omitted critical findings or mischaracterized radiographic observations can directly affect patient care. Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) possess rich medical knowledge, they likewise struggle to draw a reliable boundary between clinically significant errors and harmless variation. We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance from detecting true clinical errors ("Discrimination") and tolerating insignificant variations ("Robustness"). Across 8 LLM evaluators under one-pass and two-pass settings, we identify a widespread discrimination bias: models effectively detect errors but also over-penalize harmless rephrasings. To mitigate this, we synthesize 4k report pairs and train lightweight interpretable metrics on Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B. Our trained metric sharpens the clinical significance boundary, surpassing 32B-scale medical LLMs and remaining competitive with proprietary models. Crucially, the more costly two-pass setting fails to consistently improve overall performance and mainly trades discrimination for robustness. These findings suggest one-pass trained metrics as the practical choice for cost-sensitive deployment, with two-pass inference reserved for settings where D-R balance is critical. We will release the dataset and metric.
Qingyu Lu, Ruochen Li, Liang Ding +3
Nanyang Technological University · Technical University of Munich · Alibaba +2
Automated radiology report generation requires models to do more than produce fluent clinical narratives: they must explicitly state supported diagnoses while avoiding unsupported ones. However, existing medical vision-language models (MedVLMs) are typically trained with token-level maximum likelihood objectives, which prioritize text agreement over diagnostically critical terms. As a result, models can miss key diagnoses and introduce wrong ones. We identify this as an objective misalignment between conventional language modeling and the asymmetric diagnostic requirements of radiology reporting. To encode these requirements, we introduce Diagnostic Loss (DLoss), a differentiable, architecture-agnostic objective that operates directly on decoder token probabilities. DLoss separately aggregates probability mass over vocabularies associated with diagnoses supported by the reference report and with unsupported alternatives. Using asymmetric pooling across token positions in the report, it encourages supported diagnoses to receive sufficient probability in at least one position while suppressing spurious probability spikes for unsupported diagnoses across all positions during training. The loss can be applied to existing 3D MedVLMs without modifying their vision backbones, language decoders, or inference procedures, and introduces no additional inference-time computation. We train and evaluate DLoss on 50,000 abdominal CT scans across several 3D MedVLM architectures on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution report-generation benchmarks. Across these settings, DLoss improves diagnostic faithfulness while maintaining competitive performance on conventional language-generation metrics, showing the value of asymmetric sequence-level supervision for radiology report generation. The code for DLoss is available at https://github.com/gmum/DLoss.
Ignacy Kolton, Wenxuan Li, Zongwei Zhou +4
Jagiellonian University · Johns Hopkins University · GAMMED +2