cs.CVMay 11, 2026

Verification Mirage: Mapping the Reliability Boundary of Self-Verification in Medical VQA

Authors: Ruinan Jin, Beidi Zhao, Myeongkyun Kang, Qiong Zhang, Xiaoxiao Li

Organizations: 1The University of British Columbia · 2Vector Institute · 3Redmin University of China

Abstract

Self-verification, re-invoking the same vision language model (VLM) in a fresh context to check its own generated answer, is increasingly used as a default safety layer for medical visual question answering (VQA). We argue that this practice is fundamentally unreliable. We introduce [METHOD NAME], a diagnostic framework for mapping the reliability boundary of medical VLM self-verification by decomposing verifier behavior into discrimination capability and agreement bias. Because the verifier and answer generator are capacity-coupled, the verifier can overly agree with the generator, creating a verification mirage: a regime with both high verifier error and high agreement bias, driven by false acceptance of incorrect answers. Evaluating six open-weight VLMs across five medical VQA datasets and seven medical tasks, we find that this boundary is strongly task-conditioned. Knowledge-intensive clinical tasks fall deepest into the mirage, simpler tasks are more resistant, and perceptual tasks lie in between. Verification also fails to provide an independent safety signal: logistic mixed-effects analysis shows that verifier error and agreement bias become more likely when the generator is wrong, while saliency analyses show that verifiers under-attend to image evidence relative to generators, a phenomenon we call the lazy verifier. Cross-verification reduces but does not eliminate the mirage. Moreover, when verification is reused in multi-turn actor-verifier loops, most initially wrong answers become locked in by false verification. Since our experiments use clean benchmarks, the observed reliability boundary likely underestimates failures in real clinical deployment.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 30, 2026cs.AI

Auditing Frontier Vision-Language Models for Trustworthy Medical VQA: Grounding Failures, Format Collapse, and Domain Adaptation

Deploying vision-language models (VLMs) in clinical settings demands auditable behavior under realistic failure conditions, yet the failure landscape of frontier VLMs on specialized medical inputs is poorly characterized. We audit five recent frontier and grounding-aware VLMs (Gemini2.5Pro, GPT-5, o3, GLM-4.5V, Qwen2.5VL) on Medical VQA along two trust-relevant axes. Perception: all models localize anatomical and pathological targets poorly -- the best model reaches only 0.23 mean IoU and 19.1% Acc@0.5 -- and exhibit clinically dangerous laterality confusion. Pipeline integration: a self-grounding pipeline, where the same model localizes then answers, degrades VQA accuracy for every model -- driven by both inaccurate localization and format-compliance failures under the two-step prompt (parse failure rises to 70%--99% for Gemini and GPT-5 on VQA-RAD). Replacing predicted boxes with ground-truth annotations recovers and improves VQA accuracy, consistent with the failure residing in the perception module rather than in the decomposition itself. These observational findings identify grounding quality as a primary trustworthiness bottleneck in our SLAKE bounding-box setting. As a complementary fine-tuning follow-up, supervised fine-tuning of Qwen2.5VL on combined Med-VQA training data attains the highest reported SLAKE open-ended recall (85.5%) among comparable methods, suggesting that the VQA-level gap is tractable with domain adaptation; whether this also closes the perception/trustworthiness bottleneck is left to future work.
Xupeng Chen, Binbin Shi, Chenqian Le +5
Medical Visual Question AnsweringTextvqaRecent Vision-Language ModelsDiagnostic BenchmarkGround TruthDomain Adaptation+1
AskPDF
May 8, 2026cs.CV

MedVIGIL: Evaluating Trustworthy Medical VLMs Under Broken Visual Evidence

Medical vision--language models (VLMs) are usually evaluated on intact image--question pairs, but trustworthy clinical use requires a stronger property: a model must recognise when the evidential basis for an answer has failed. We study this through silent failures under perturbed evidence, where a vision-required medical question is paired with a false premise, wording perturbation, knowledge-only rewrite, or ROI-corrupted image, yet the model returns a fluent non-refusal answer. We introduce medvigil, a 300-case evaluation suite drawn from four public medical VQA sources, supervised end to end by four board-certified radiologists: every gold answer, refusal option, candidate-answer set, paraphrase, false-premise trap, ROI box, and clinical risk tier is clinician-authored. Two attending radiologists annotate every case in parallel, a senior radiologist consolidates the released manifest, and a separate fourth radiologist independent of construction answers every probe to provide the human reference baseline. The release contains 2556 MCQ probes, 240 counterfactual triplets, physician-adjudicated risk-tier and answerability flags, ROI boxes, and a paired open-ended variant. We report seven correctness-conditioned audit metrics that summarise into the medvigil Composite Score (MCS), and audit 16 vision-capable models plus two text-only baselines. The independent radiologist scores MCS 83.3 at silent-failure rate 5.8%, leaving a 14.1-point composite headroom above the strongest audited model (Claude Opus 4.7 at 69.2). The benchmark and evaluation harness are publicly released.
Hanqi Jiang, Junhao Chen, Mingyu Kang +12
Medical Visual Question AnsweringMedical Vision-Language ModelsVisual EvidenceDiagnostic BenchmarkMultiple-Choice Questions
AskPDF
Jun 12, 2026cs.CR

When Good Verifiers Go Bad: Self-Improving VLMs Can Regress on New Tasks

Verifier-driven self-DPO is a common recipe for self-improving production visual-language models. In this setup, a frozen verifier scores candidate generations, the top- and bottom-scoring candidates form a preference example, and DPO updates the learner. The deployment-time assumption is monotone: a stronger verifier should yield a stronger student. We show that this assumption can fail because verifier quality is highly task-specific. On a four-rung open-source verifier ladder across MathVista, MMMU, and BLINK, the same verifiers that are above-threshold and improve a Qwen-3-VL-2B student on MathVista become sub-threshold on MMMU, where their task-rubric accuracy drops to 8% to 23%. In this regime, every verifier we tested silently regresses the student, producing drops of 3.4 to 10.9 percentage points below the frozen baseline while the DPO training loss continues to decrease. The regression replicates on a second student, Qwen-2.5-VL-3B. Moreover, within the failure regime, damage is confidence-inverted: the more accurate-but-still-wrong verifier causes larger regression than a near-random verifier, suggesting that progress-gated replay amplifies confidently wrong preference pairs. We give a compact mechanistic explanation via a variance theorem for progress-gated replay and its direction-mismatch failure mode. The deployment message is operational rather than purely diagnostic: before running any verifier-driven loop, teams should measure target-task rubric accuracy, rank verifiers by target-task rubric quality rather than parameter count, and treat diminishing returns in above-threshold regimes as a verifier-side compute budget cap.
Jianzhe Lin
VerificationVision-Language ReasoningVerifiable RewardsRubricsRegression
AskPDF