提出新框架SURE-VQA,系统评估医学视觉问答模型的鲁棒性。
SURE-VQA: Systematic Understanding of Robustness Evaluation in Medical VQA Tasks
- 基于真实数据分布偏移设计评估实验,更贴近实际场景。
- 用大语言模型替代传统匹配法,提升语义评估准确性。
- 引入无图像基线,揭示模型对多模态信息的真实依赖程度。
视觉语言模型(VLMs)在医学视觉问答(VQA)任务中潜力巨大,可作为患者和临床医生的交互助手。然而,其在未见数据上的分布偏移鲁棒性仍是安全部署的关键挑战。现有评估方法缺乏系统性,难以揭示模型行为本质。为此,我们提出SURE-VQA框架,包含三大核心要求:1)鲁棒性应基于真实数据中的分布偏移进行评估,而非仅依赖合成偏移;2)采用大语言模型(LLMs)进行语义评估,克服传统词元匹配在语义捕捉上的不足;3)报告有意义的基线(如不使用图像的基准),以分析多模态输入对模型的影响。我们在三个医学数据集上,针对四种分布偏移类型,评估了多种微调(FT)方法的鲁棒性。结果表明:1)无一种微调方法在所有情况下均表现最优;2)不同微调方法间的鲁棒性趋势比不同偏移类型间更稳定。此外,不依赖图像的简单基线表现意外优异,且LoRA在分布内数据上表现最佳。代码已开源:https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/sure-vqa。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have great potential in medical tasks, like Visual Question Answering (VQA), where they could act as interactive assistants for both patients and clinicians. Yet their robustness to distribution shifts on unseen data remains a key concern for safe deployment. Evaluating such robustness requires a controlled experimental setup that allows for systematic insights into the model's behavior. However, we demonstrate that current setups fail to offer sufficiently thorough evaluations. To address this gap, we introduce a novel framework, called SURE-VQA, centered around three key requirements to overcome current pitfalls and systematically analyze VLM robustness: 1) Since robustness on synthetic shifts does not necessarily translate to real-world shifts, it should be measured on real-world shifts that are inherent to the VQA data; 2) Traditional token-matching metrics often fail to capture underlying semantics, necessitating the use of large language models (LLMs) for more accurate semantic evaluation; 3) Model performance often lacks interpretability due to missing sanity baselines, thus meaningful baselines should be reported that allow assessing the multimodal impact on the VLM. To demonstrate the relevance of this framework, we conduct a study on the robustness of various Fine-Tuning (FT) methods across three medical datasets with four types of distribution shifts. Our study highlights key insights into robustness: 1) No FT method consistently outperforms others in robustness, and 2) robustness trends are more stable across FT methods than across distribution shifts. Additionally, we find that simple sanity baselines that do not use the image data can perform surprisingly well and confirm LoRA as the best-performing FT method on in-distribution data. Code is provided at https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/sure-vqa.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。