pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19950 · v1 · pith:RBGSLSF3new · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Confidence Calibration for Multimodal LLMs: An Empirical Study through Medical VQA

Yuetian Du , Yucheng Wang , Ming Kong , Tian Liang , Qiang Long , Bingdi Chen , Qiang Zhu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords confidence calibrationmultimodal LLMsmedical VQAexpected calibration errorMS-FBIauxiliary LLM assessment
0
0 comments X

The pith

A method pairing multi-strategy interrogation with auxiliary expert LLM review reduces expected calibration error by 40 percent on average in medical visual question answering.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Multimodal large language models often produce confidence scores that do not match their actual accuracy when answering medical visual questions, which risks misleading diagnoses. The paper tests a new calibration approach that fuses multiple interrogation strategies and adds an auxiliary expert LLM to reassess outputs. On three separate medical VQA datasets the method lowers Expected Calibration Error by roughly 40 percent. A reader would care because better-aligned confidence could make these models safer to use alongside doctors. The study also stresses that calibration techniques need to be tuned to the medical domain rather than applied generically.

Core claim

The paper shows that Multi-Strategy Fusion-Based Interrogation combined with auxiliary expert LLM assessment produces better-calibrated confidence estimates in multimodal LLMs performing medical visual question answering, cutting average Expected Calibration Error by 40 percent across three datasets and thereby increasing reliability for AI-assisted diagnosis.

What carries the argument

Multi-Strategy Fusion-Based Interrogation (MS-FBI) with auxiliary expert LLM assessment, which generates varied question phrasings and uses the expert model to score the primary model's answers for improved confidence alignment.

If this is right

  • Lower ECE produces confidence scores that more closely track actual correctness on medical VQA tasks.
  • Domain-specific calibration steps become necessary for trustworthy use of MLLMs in healthcare settings.
  • The combined MS-FBI and expert-assessment pipeline offers one concrete route to more reliable AI-assisted diagnosis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same interrogation-plus-expert-review pattern could be tested on non-medical multimodal tasks where confidence misalignment also occurs.
  • If the auxiliary LLM itself shows calibration drift on certain question types, the overall gain might shrink or reverse in those cases.
  • Future experiments could measure whether the method changes the rate at which models abstain from answering when uncertain.

Load-bearing premise

The auxiliary expert LLM is assumed to supply accurate and unbiased judgments of the primary model's outputs.

What would settle it

Running the same method on a fourth, previously unseen medical VQA dataset and finding no ECE reduction or an increase in error would falsify the reported improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19950 by Bingdi Chen, Ming Kong, Qiang Long, Qiang Zhu, Tian Liang, Yucheng Wang, Yuetian Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The MLLM initially overconfidently identifies a liver in a chest CT scan. Through a two-phase interrogation process (MS-FBI), including an initial inquiry and deep inquiry with expert LLM assessment, the model’s confidence is adjusted to a well-calibrated level. 2 Method 2.1 Overview As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization analysis of the confidence (x-axis) vs. accuracy (y-axis) calibration comparison across different baselines (including ours), with all datasets aggregated. 3.4 Visualization and Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show great potential in medical tasks, but their elicited confidence often misaligns with actual accuracy, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or overlooking correct advice. This study presents the first comprehensive analysis of the relationship between accuracy and confidence in medical MLLMs. It proposes a novel method that combines Multi-Strategy Fusion-Based Interrogation (MS-FBI) with auxiliary expert LLM assessment, aiming to improve confidence calibration in Medical Visual Question Answering (VQA). Experiments demonstrate that our method reduces the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by an average of 40\% across three Medical VQA datasets, significantly enhancing MLLMs' reliability. The findings highlight the importance of domain-specific calibration for MLLMs in healthcare, offering a more trustworthy solution for AI-assisted diagnosis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an empirical study on confidence calibration for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) applied to Medical Visual Question Answering (VQA). It claims to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the accuracy-confidence relationship in this domain and proposes a method combining Multi-Strategy Fusion-Based Interrogation (MS-FBI) with auxiliary expert LLM assessment, reporting an average 40% reduction in Expected Calibration Error (ECE) across three Medical VQA datasets.

Significance. If the ECE reductions are shown to be robust after validating all components, the work would address a practically important issue for trustworthy AI in healthcare, where miscalibrated confidence can lead to diagnostic errors. The domain-specific focus is relevant, but the empirical claims require strong controls to be impactful.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 (Method, auxiliary LLM assessment)] §4 (Method, auxiliary LLM assessment): The central claim of a genuine 40% ECE reduction rests on treating the auxiliary expert LLM's output evaluations as reliable ground truth for adjusting the primary MLLM. No measurement of the auxiliary LLM's own calibration (e.g., its ECE) or validation against human experts/ground-truth labels is reported. This is load-bearing, as bias or miscalibration in the auxiliary would directly artifact the reported improvements.
  2. [Experiments section / abstract claim] Experiments section / abstract claim: The 40% average ECE reduction is presented without naming the three datasets, without reporting baseline methods or their ECE values, and without statistical significance tests or controls for confounds. This prevents assessment of whether the improvement is substantive or an artifact, directly undermining evaluation of the central empirical result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The three Medical VQA datasets are not named, reducing the reader's ability to assess scope and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting key areas for strengthening our empirical claims. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Method, auxiliary LLM assessment): The central claim of a genuine 40% ECE reduction rests on treating the auxiliary expert LLM's output evaluations as reliable ground truth for adjusting the primary MLLM. No measurement of the auxiliary LLM's own calibration (e.g., its ECE) or validation against human experts/ground-truth labels is reported. This is load-bearing, as bias or miscalibration in the auxiliary would directly artifact the reported improvements.

    Authors: We agree this validation is essential and was not reported. In the revised manuscript we will add the auxiliary LLM's ECE computed on the same three datasets, along with direct comparisons of its assessments to ground-truth labels (where available in the VQA datasets) to quantify its reliability as an assessor. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Experiments section / abstract claim: The 40% average ECE reduction is presented without naming the three datasets, without reporting baseline methods or their ECE values, and without statistical significance tests or controls for confounds. This prevents assessment of whether the improvement is substantive or an artifact, directly undermining evaluation of the central empirical result.

    Authors: The full experiments section already specifies the three datasets, the baseline methods, and their ECE values. To improve clarity we will (1) name the datasets explicitly in the abstract and (2) add statistical significance tests plus explicit controls for confounds in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical study with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical study on confidence calibration for MLLMs in medical VQA. It proposes MS-FBI combined with auxiliary expert LLM assessment and reports measured ECE reductions (average 40%) across three datasets. No mathematical derivation chain exists, and no 'predictions' or first-principles results are claimed that reduce to inputs by construction. The auxiliary LLM serves as an external assessment tool whose outputs are used to adjust the primary model; this is a methodological choice whose validity is tested via downstream ECE metrics on held-out data, not a self-referential fit. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (standard ECE on public VQA datasets) and receives a normal non-finding score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical study whose central claim rests on experimental outcomes; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 1051 out tokens · 30412 ms · 2026-06-26T17:47:35.844426+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12265, arXiv:2210.12265

    Ahuja, K., Sitaram, S., Dandapat, S., et al.: On the calibration of massively multi- lingual language models. arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12265, arXiv:2210.12265

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07650, arXiv:2002.07650

    Andrey, M., Mark, G.: Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured predic- tion. arXiv preprint (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07650, arXiv:2002.07650

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Pattern Recognition30(7), 1145–1159 (1997)

    Bradley, A.P.: The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition30(7), 1145–1159 (1997)

    1997

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint (2024), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.17146, arXiv:2409.17146

    Deitke, M., Clark, C., Lee, S., et al.: MOLMO and PIXMO: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art multimodal models. arXiv preprint (2024), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.17146, arXiv:2409.17146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Geng,J.,Cai,F.,Wang,Y.,etal.:Asurveyofconfidenceestimationandcalibration inlargelanguagemodels.arXivpreprint(2023),https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08298, arXiv:2311.08298

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., et al.: On calibration of modern neural networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 1321–1330. PMLR (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of CLEF Working Notes (2018)

    Hasan, S.A., Ling, Y., Farri, O., et al.: Overview of ImageCLEF 2018 medical domain visual question answering task. In: Proceedings of CLEF Working Notes (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221, arXiv:2207.05221

    Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., et al.: Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221, arXiv:2207.05221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Scientific Data5(180251) (2018)

    Lau, J., Gayen, S., Ben Abacha, A., et al.: A dataset of clinically generated visual questions and answers about radiology images. Scientific Data5(180251) (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    Li, C., Wong, C., Zhang, S., et al.: LLaVA-Med: Training a large language-and- vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 36 (2024) 10 Y. Du et al

    2024

  11. [11]

    In: IEEE 18th Interna- tional Symposium on Biomedical Imaging

    Liu, B., Zhan, L.M., Xu, L., et al.: SLAKE: A semantically-labeled knowledge- enhanced dataset for medical visual question answering. In: IEEE 18th Interna- tional Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. pp. 1650–1654 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint (2023), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.09731, arXiv:2311.09731

    Liu, G., Wang, X., Yuan, L., et al.: Examining LLMs’ uncertainty expression towards questions outside parametric knowledge. arXiv preprint (2023), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.09731, arXiv:2311.09731

    arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., et al.: Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 26296–26306 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., et al.: LLaVA-Next (2024), https://llava-vl.github.io/blog/ 2024-01-30-llava-next/

    2024

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv

    Liu, Y., Yao, Y., Ton, J.F., et al.: Trustworthy llms: a survey and guideline for evaluating large language models’ alignment. arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv. org/abs/2308.05374, arXiv:2308.05374

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Balkan Social Science Review17, 41–55 (2021)

    Manea, T.: Lie detection during the interview and interrogation process: A psy- chosocial criminal approach. Balkan Social Science Review17, 41–55 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11457, arXiv:2402.11457

    Ni, S., Bi, K., Guo, J., et al.: When do LLMs need retrieval augmentation? Miti- gating LLMs’ overconfidence helps retrieval augmentation. arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11457, arXiv:2402.11457

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint (2025), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.19634, arXiv:2502.19634

    Pan, J., Liu, C., Wu, J., Liu, F., Zhu, J., Li, H.B., Chen, C., Cheng, O., Rueckert, D.: MedVLM-R1: Incentivizing medical reasoning capability of vision- language models (VLMs) via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint (2025), https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.19634, arXiv:2502.19634

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2025), iCLR

    Ren, Y., Sutherland, D.J.: Learning dynamics of llm finetuning. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2025), iCLR

    2025

  20. [20]

    medRxiv (2024)

    Savage, T., Wang, J., Gallo, R., et al.: Large language model uncertainty measure- ment and calibration for medical diagnosis and treatment. medRxiv (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12507, arXiv:2205.12507

    Si, C., Zhao, C., Min, S., et al.: Re-examining calibration: The case of question answering. arXiv preprint (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12507, arXiv:2205.12507

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Nature Machine Intelligence pp

    Steyvers, M., Tejeda, H., Kumar, A., et al.: What large language models know and what people think they know. Nature Machine Intelligence pp. 1–11 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17287, arXiv:2404.17287

    Tao, S., Yao, L., Ding, H., et al.: When to trust llms: Aligning confidence with response quality. arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17287, arXiv:2404.17287

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975, arXiv:2305.14975

    Tian, K., Mitchell, E., Zhou, A., et al.: Just ask for calibration: Strategies for elicit- ing calibrated confidence scores from language models fine-tuned with human feed- back. arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14975, arXiv:2305.14975

    arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Diagnostics14, 1541 (2024)

    Wada, A., Akashi, T., Shih, G., et al.: Optimizing GPT-4 turbo diagnostic ac- curacy in neuroradiology through prompt engineering and confidence thresholds. Diagnostics14, 1541 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06707, arXiv:2410.06707

    Wang, C., Szarvas, G., Balazs, G., et al.: Calibrating verbalized probabilities for large language models. arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06707, arXiv:2410.06707

    arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18418, arXiv:2407.18418

    Wen, B., Yao, J., Feng, S., et al.: Know your limits: A survey of abstention in large language models. arXiv preprint (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18418, arXiv:2407.18418

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv

    Xiong, M., Hu, Z., Lu, X., et al.: Can LLMs express their uncertainty? An empirical evaluation of confidence elicitation in LLMs. arXiv preprint (2023), https://arxiv. org/abs/2306.13063, arXiv:2306.13063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023