REVIEW 1 cited by
MedHallTune: An Instruction-Tuning Benchmark for Mitigating Medical Hallucination in Vision-Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
MedHallTune: An Instruction-Tuning Benchmark for Mitigating Medical Hallucination in Vision-Language Models
read the original abstract
The increasing use of vision-language models (VLMs) in healthcare applications presents great challenges related to hallucinations, in which the models may generate seemingly plausible results that are in fact incorrect. Such hallucinations can jeopardize clinical decision making, potentially harming the diagnosis and treatments. In this work, we propose MedHallTune, a large-scale benchmark designed specifically to evaluate and mitigate hallucinations in medical VLMs. Comprising over 100,000 images and 1,000,000 instruction pairs, MedHallTune includes both hallucination and non-hallucination samples, each with ground-truth annotations. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of current medical and general VLMs using MedHallTune, assessing their performance across key metrics, including clinical accuracy, relevance, detail level, and risk level. The experimental results show that fine-tuning with MedHallTune successfully improves the ability of several existing models to manage hallucinations and boost their zero-shot performance on downstream visual-question-answering (VQA) tasks, making them more reliable for practical medical applications. Our work contributes to the development of more trustworthy VLMs. Codes and dataset will be available at \href{https://github.com/russellyq/MedHallTune}{MedHallTune}.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
MissingBench-Verified: Probing Vision-Language Models' Inability to Detect Missing Object Parts
Ten leading VLMs mostly fail to report removed essential object parts as missing, and simulated detector evidence, image tools, longer reasoning, and an easier fine-tune barely improve accuracy.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.