CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 0Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

HalluCXR: Benchmarking and Mitigating Hallucinations in Medical Vision-Language Models for Chest Radiograph Interpretation

Open access
Wang, Haoyu, Li, Zitong·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2605.20469arXiv 2605.20469
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used for medical image interpretation, yet they frequently hallucinate, generating clinically plausible but factually incorrect findings that pose direct patient safety risks. We introduce HalluCXR, a benchmark evaluating six architecturally diverse VLMs across 856 stratified MIMIC-CXR chest radiographs and three query types, yielding 15,408 model evaluations. An eight-category hallucination taxonomy with clinical severity ratings and a two-layer detection pipeline are validated against 250 human annotations (auto-detection F1=0.959; LLM judge F1=0.907). We find that 61.9--82.3% of outputs contain hallucinations, with clinically dangerous errors in up to 80.2%. Three key patterns emerge: normal radiographs paradoxically attract the most severe hallucinations, common findings are systematically over-fabricated while rare findings go under-detected, and response length alone predicts hallucination risk (AUC up to 0.908). A six-model ensemble reduces fabrication by up to 84.8% at the cost of increased omission; a three-model subset retains comparable performance at half the cost. These results establish that hallucination auditing, verbosity-based risk monitoring, and ensemble-based safety layers are prerequisites for clinical deployment.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

HalluCXR benchmarks six vision-language models on 856 MIMIC-CXR chest radiographs across three query types, yielding 15,408 evaluations with hallucination rates of 61.9–82.3% and severe hallucination rates of 36.4–80.2%. It introduces an eight-category hallucination taxonomy and detection pipeline, and shows length-based risk scoring and ensemble mitigation can reduce fabrication by up to 84.8%.

Key findings

  • Across six models, auto-detected hallucination rates ranged from 61.9% [95% CI: 60.0–63.8] to 82.3% [80.8–83.8]; severe (severity-3) rates ranged from 36.4% to 80.2%. BiomedCLIP had the lowest auto-detected rate (61.9%) and severe rate (36.4%), while Qwen2-VL had the highest auto-detected rate (82.3%) and severe rate (80.2%).
  • Normal radiographs (S1) attracted the highest proportion of severe hallucinations (51.9% severity-3 vs. 27.4–43.8% for abnormal strata). Common findings were over-fabricated—Lung Opacity 29.6%, Pleural Effusion 28.2%, Cardiomegaly 24.1%—while rare findings were under-detected, with omission rates of 79.8% for Enlarged Cardiomediastinum, 75.0% for Fracture, and 71.2% for Pneumothorax.
  • Response length predicted hallucination: overall AUC=0.782, with per-model AUC up to 0.908 (InternVL2); hallucinated outputs averaged 1,297 characters vs. 402 for clean outputs (3.2× difference). Clinical reasoning queries produced the highest hallucination rates (96.5–98.8%), while targeted VQA produced the lowest (20.8–65.0%).
  • Ensemble mitigation reduced fabrication: simple k≥3 voting dropped fabrication from 0.329 to 0.054 (83.6% reduction) while omission rose from 0.124 to 0.530; ECE-weighted voting achieved the best overall F1 (0.563); label-aware weighted voting achieved the lowest fabrication rate (0.050, an 84.8% reduction). A three-model subset retained 99.9% of F1 at 50% cost.

Methods

  • Sample: 856 frontal chest radiographs from MIMIC-CXR, representing 220 unique patients, stratified into four CheXpert-label complexity levels: S1 Normal (n=153), S2 Single (n=212), S3 Multi (n=241), and S4 Complex (n=250). Ground truth used 12 pathological CheXpert labels plus original radiologist reports.
  • Models and queries: six VLMs—BiomedCLIP, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.1, InternVL2, LLaVA-NeXT-Mistral, and Qwen2-VL—were evaluated with three query types: open-ended report generation, targeted visual question answering, and clinical reasoning, yielding 856 × 6 × 3 = 15,408 evaluations. Local models used 4-bit quantization on a single A100; all inference used temperature 0 and max 512 tokens.
  • Detection and analysis: an eight-category taxonomy (A1–C3) with severity ratings 1–3 was paired with a two-layer pipeline: negation-aware keyword auto-detection on all 15,408 records and LLM-as-judge on 12,840 records (Gemini primary judge; GPT-5.1 cross-validation on 2,808 records). Validation against 250 human annotations gave auto-detection F1=0.959 (precision=0.976, recall=0.943; κ=0.870) and LLM judge F1=0.907.

Limitations

  • Stated: auto-detection relies on 12 CheXpert NLP-extracted labels (0.29% of fabrications fall outside these), and extraction noise for rare labels (e.g., Fracture n=18) may inflate omission rates. The LLM judge may introduce same-family bias (κ=0.150 reflects near-uniform positive predictions); GPT-5.1 severity uses auto-detection to avoid circular evaluation. Evaluation covers frontal radiographs from a single institution; fixed prompt templates are used, with prompt sensitivity left for future work; open-source models use 4-bit quantization vs. full-precision commercial APIs, though gaps are not consistently in one direction.
  • Evident from the text: GPT-5.1’s own outputs use auto-detection only (A1/A2, no A3–C3), and its severity rates may be underestimated due to lower auto-detection recall (0.675–0.853). InternVL2 was excluded from confidence calibration due to insufficient parseable data. The paper also notes that the clinical reasoning prompt may encourage speculation on normal images, which may partly amplify the S1 severe-hallucination finding.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.20469

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    89% of Qwen2-VL's responses report 100% confidence.

    “89% of its responses report 100% confidence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Structured VQA constrains outputs to a mean of 299 characters versus 1,876 for clinical reasoning.

    “by constraining outputs to a mean of 299 characters versus 1,876 for clinical reasoning”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    Switching from open-ended to targeted VQA lowers hallucination by 18.2-74.9pp across generative models (mean 55 pp).

    “Switching from open-ended to targeted VQA lowers hallucination by 18.2-74.9pp across generative models (mean 55 pp)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Qwen2-VL is the most severely miscalibrated among the five models, with ECE=0.725.

    “Qwen2-VL is the most severely miscalibrated (ECE=0.725”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A sensitivity analysis treating uncertain as negative increases rates by only 0.5-1.6 percentage points.

    “A sensitivity analysis treating uncertain as negative increases rates by only 0.5-1.6 pp.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 5

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ensemble strategies (calibration-weighted and label-aware voting) reduce fabrication by up to 84.8% and improve F1 by 8.7% over simple voting, without retraining.

    “4. Mitigation Framework: A multi-layer mitigation approach combining (a) length-based risk triggers for real-time safety filtering, and (b) ensemble strategies (calibration-weighted and label-aware voting) that reduce fabrication by up to 84.8% and improve F1 by 8.7% over simple voting, without retraining.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A six-model ensemble reduces fabrication by up to 84.8% at the cost of increased omission.

    “A six-model ensemble reduces fabrication by up to 84.8% at the cost of increased omission; a three-model subset retains comparable performance at half the cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    LLaVA-NeXT is poorly calibrated, with ECE=0.282.

    “GPT-5.1 (ECE=0.411)and LLaVA-NeXT (ECE=0.282)are also poorly calibrated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In the dataset, Pleural Effusion (275 images), Lung Opacity (261), and Cardiomegaly (232) are the most prevalent CheXpert labels.

    “Table 2 shows the distribution of CheXpert labels across the dataset, with Pleural Effusion (275 images), Lung Opacity (261), and Cardiomegaly (232) being the most prevalent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Gemini 3 Flash fares better than the poorly calibrated models, with ECE=0.113, but is not well calibrated in absolute terms.

    “BiomedCLIP (ECE=0.181)and Gemini 3 Flash (ECE=0.113)fare better, though neither is well calibrated in absolute terms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Qwen2-VL has the highest overall hallucination rate (82.3%) among the six evaluated models.

    “Qwen2-VL 43.4 95.0 92.8 85.3 82.3 55.2 86.6 87.4 83.0 80.2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The length gap is widest for Gemini 3 Flash (4.9×: 1,406 vs. 287 chars) and InternVL2 (3.1×: 1,338 vs. 427 chars).

    “The gap is widest for Gemini 3 Flash (4.9×: 1,406 vs. 287 chars) and InternVL2 (3.1×: 1,338 vs. 427 chars).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Label-aware weighted voting has an omission rate of 0.519, similar to simple voting.

    “Its omission rate (0.519) remains similar to simple voting”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The proposed benchmark includes per-label evaluation, 3-level severity, ensemble mitigation, ROC/AUC risk scoring, 4 clinical strata, and normal images, whereas Med-HallMark and FactCheXcker do not include all these features.

    “Table 1 . Comparison with concurrent medical VLM hallucination benchmarks.”
    • Also stated in: § 7. Conclusion · plain
      “| Per-label | ✗ | Partial | ✓ |”
    • Also stated in: § 7. Conclusion · plain
      “| Severity | Hier. | ✗ | 3-level |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hallucination rates by length quintile generally increase with length, with Q1 elevated by short BiomedCLIP outputs.

    “rates generally increase with length (Q1 elevated by short BiomedCLIP outputs).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Across all models, there are 44,888 hallucination instances, with A1 fabrication (22,560) and A2 omission (13,542) being the most common types.

    “Total | 4927 8057 5342 † 9519 8542 8501 44888”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “A1 Fabrication | 1794 6143 4039 † 4309 2845 3430 22560”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “A2 Omission | 2836 1061 1303 † 2618 2864 2860 13542”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The proposed eight-category taxonomy comprehensively covers hallucination types in chest radiograph interpretation.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    For all six models, open-ended queries have higher auto-detection hallucination rates than VQA queries.

    “BiomedCLIP 79.1 128 27.6 82 79.1 128”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “Gemini 3 Flash 95.7 1229 20.8 187 97.2 1834”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Ensemble methods achieve 83.6% fabrication reduction with k≥3 and best F1=0.563 with ECE-weighted.

    “(k≥3: 83.6% fabrication reduction; ECE-weighted: best F1=0.563)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    InternVL2 has no confidence data.

    “No confidence data InternVL2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Qwen2-VL reports 100% confidence on 89% of outputs while hallucinating on 80.2%.

    “Qwen2-VL reports 100% confidence on 89% of outputs while hallucinating on 80.2%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    The paper proposes an eight-category hallucination taxonomy with severity ranges.

    “Table 3 . Eight-category hallucination taxonomy with severity ranges.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The proposed eight-category taxonomy comprehensively covers hallucination types in chest radiograph interpretation.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The additional sixth model (GPT-5.1) provides a tighter k≥4 threshold option.

    “The additional sixth model (GPT-5.1)provides a tighter k≥4 threshold option.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Label-aware weighted voting achieves the lowest fabrication rate of 0.050, an 84.8% reduction from baseline.

    “This achieves the lowest fabrication rate (0.050, an 84.8% reduction from baseline)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    BiomedCLIP fares better than the poorly calibrated models, with ECE=0.181, but is not well calibrated in absolute terms.

    “BiomedCLIP (ECE=0.181)and Gemini 3 Flash (ECE=0.113)fare better, though neither is well calibrated in absolute terms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The optimal threshold for response length is 745 characters, with Youden's J=0.579, yielding 68.7% sensitivity and 89.3% specificity.

    “The optimal threshold at 745 characters (Youden's J=0.579, defined as sensitivity + specificity -1) yields 68.7% sensitivity and 89.3% specificity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    Clinical queries have the highest hallucination rates among query types for most models.

    “Gemini 3 Flash 95.7 1229 20.8 187 97.2 1834”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Response length provides a model-agnostic risk signal (AUC=0.782, up to 0.908) requiring no ground truth.

    “Response length provides a modelagnostic risk signal (AUC=0.782, up to 0.908) requiring no ground truth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Vision-language models frequently hallucinate when interpreting medical images, generating clinically plausible but factually incorrect findings that pose direct patient safety risks.

    “Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used for medical image interpretation, yet they frequently hallucinate, generating clinically plausible but factually incorrect findings that pose direct patient safety risks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The queried finding is sampled from ground-truth positive labels (expected YES, 79%) or absent labels (expected NO, 21%).

    “The queried finding is sampled from ground-truth positive labels (expected YES, 79%) or absent labels (expected NO, 21%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    FaithScore decomposes text into atomic claims for verification.

    “FaithScore [13] decomposes text into atomic claims for verification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    POPE probes VLMs with yes/no object-presence questions.

    “POPE (Polling-based Object Probing Evaluation) [12] probes VLMs with yes/no object-presence questions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CLIP-based retrieval models such as BiomedCLIP and PubMedCLIP match images to pre-defined findings via contrastive learning.

    “CLIPbased retrieval models such as BiomedCLIP [14] and Pub-MedCLIP [15] match images to pre-defined findings via contrastive learning, yielding deterministic outputs but limited expressiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [15]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Auto-detection achieves F1=0.959 (precision=0.976, recall=0.943) and Cohen's κ=0.870.

    “Auto-detection achieves F1=0.959 (precision=0.976,recall=0.943)and Cohen's κ=0.870.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Med-HallMark evaluates primarily on VQA tasks without performing fabrication/omission analysis or ensemble mitigation.

    “Med-HallMark [17] introduces a hierarchical hallucination taxonomy for medical VLMs but evaluates primarily on VQA tasks without perfinding fabrication/omission analysis or ensemble mitigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent surveys do not provide fine-grained medical taxonomies, severity ratings, or concrete mitigation strategies.

    “Recent surveys [19] identify fabrication and omission as primary failure modes but do not provide fine-grained medical taxonomies, severity ratings, or concrete mitigation strategies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Commercial APIs offer limited transparency about training data and architecture.

    “Commercial APIs such as Gemini [1] and GPT-4V [8] produce fluent output but offer limited transparency about training data and architecture.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [8]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The open-ended report generation query tests spontaneous hallucination, i.e., what a model fabricates or omits without specific prompting.

    “This tests spontaneous hallucination: what a model fabricates or omits without specific prompting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Commercial APIs such as Gemini and GPT-4V produce fluent output.

    “Commercial APIs such as Gemini [1] and GPT-4V [8] produce fluent output but offer limited transparency about training data and architecture.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [8]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent surveys identify fabrication and omission as primary failure modes.

    “Recent surveys [19] identify fabrication and omission as primary failure modes but do not provide fine-grained medical taxonomies, severity ratings, or concrete mitigation strategies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The clinical reasoning query tests multi-step reasoning fidelity, requiring models to synthesize findings into clinical hypotheses.

    “This tests multi-step reasoning fidelity, requiring models to synthesize findings into clinical hypotheses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We validate against 250 stratified human annotations by two co-authors with clinical informatics training (disagreements resolved by discussion).

    “We validate against 250 stratified human annotations by two co-authors with clinical informatics training (disagreements resolved by discussion).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Med-Halt targets text-only QA without visual grounding.

    “In the medical domain, Med-Halt [9] targets text-only QA without visual grounding, and MedVH [10] evaluates single models without crossmodel comparison or severity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The targeted visual question answering query tests binary discrimination and yes/no biases.

    “testing binary discrimination and yes/no biases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    FactCheXcker addresses measurement-specific hallucinations in CXR report generation through a modular post-hoc correction framework.

    “FactCheXcker [18] addresses measurement-specific hallucinations in CXR report generation through a modular post-hoc correction framework, complementing our focus on diagnostic finding-level hallucination.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Med-HallMark introduces a hierarchical hallucination taxonomy for medical VLMs.

    “Med-HallMark [17] introduces a hierarchical hallucination taxonomy for medical VLMs but evaluates primarily on VQA tasks without perfinding fabrication/omission analysis or ensemble mitigation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The judge's low κ=0.150 is a base-rate artifact (97.6% vs. 81.9% positive rates; only 4 true negatives); we report F1 as the primary metric.

    “The judge's low κ=0.150 is a base-rate artifact (97.6% vs. 81.9%positive rates; only 4 true negatives); we report F1 as the primary metric.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    CLIP-based retrieval models yield deterministic outputs.

    “CLIPbased retrieval models such as BiomedCLIP [14] and Pub-MedCLIP [15] match images to pre-defined findings via contrastive learning, yielding deterministic outputs but limited expressiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [14]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [15]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The clinical reasoning query may elicit speculation, particularly on normal images where no findings exist.

    “Note that this query may elicit speculation, particularly on normal images where no findings exist.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Medical vision-language models fall into three broad paradigms.

    “Medical VLMs fall into three broad paradigms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Models such as GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Flash, Qwen2-VL, InternVL2, and LLaVA-NeXT can produce detailed radiology reports, answer visual questions, and support clinical decisions.

    “Models such as GPT-5.1,Gemini 3 Flash [1], Qwen2-VL [2], InternVL2 [3], and LLaVA-NeXT [4] can produce detailed radiology reports [5,6], an-swer visual questions [7], and support clinical decisions [8].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [5]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [6]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [7]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [8]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    GPT-5.1 serves as cross-validation judge for the other five models.

    “GPT-5.1 serves as cross-validation judge for the other five models;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study validates both the autodetection pipeline and the LLM judge against 250 stratified human annotations.

    “To detect same-model bias, we cross-validate using GPT-5.1 as a second independent judge, and we validate both the autodetection pipeline and the LLM judge against 250 stratified human annotations (Section 3.4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The two-layer detection pipeline (negation-aware auto-detection plus LLM-as-judge cross-validation) was validated against 250 human expert annotations, achieving auto-detection F1=0.959, LLM judge F1=0.907, and κ=0.870.

    “An eight-category hallucination taxonomy with clinical severity ratings and a two-layer detection pipeline are validated against 250 human annotations (auto-detection F1=0.959;LLM judge F1=0.907).”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “2. Hallucination Taxonomy & Detection: An eightcategory taxonomy (A1-C3) with a two-layer detection pipeline (negation-aware auto-detection plus LLM-asjudge cross-validation) validated against 250 human expert annotations (F1=0.959,κ=0.870).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    We cross-validate using GPT-5.1 as a second judge on 2,808 stratified records.

    “We cross-validate using GPT-5.1 as a second judge on 2,808 stratified records.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Beyond binary detection, we validate category-level judgments against 175 human-annotated samples: severity ratings agree within ±1 on 97.1%, and hallucination type categories overlap on 91.2% between the judge and human annotators.

    “Beyond binary detection, we validate category-level judgments against 175 human-annotated samples: severity ratings agree within ±1 on 97.1%, and hallucination type categories overlap on 91.2% between the judge and human annotators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Each image is evaluated with three clinically motivated query types, each testing a different dimension of VLM capability.

    “Each image is evaluated with three clinically motivated query types, each testing a different dimension of VLM capability:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Layer 2 LLM-as-judge was applied to 12,840 records (five models) using Gemini as primary judge with 99.8% success rate.

    “Applied to 12,840 records (five models) using Gemini as primary judge with 99.8% success rate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    MedVH evaluates single models without cross-model comparison or severity.

    “In the medical domain, Med-Halt [9] targets text-only QA without visual grounding, and MedVH [10] evaluates single models without crossmodel comparison or severity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior benchmarks either lack visual grounding, evaluate single models without cross-model comparison, or target general-domain objects rather than radiological findings with clinical severity.

    “Prior benchmarks either lack visual grounding [9], evaluate single models without cross-model comparison [10], or target general-domain objects rather than radiological findings with clinical severity [11][12][13].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [9]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [10]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [11]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [12]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [13]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    InternVL2 was excluded from confidence calibration analysis due to insufficient parseable data.

    “InternVL2 excluded due to insufficient parseable data”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    CheXpert's uncertain labels are stored separately; mentioning an uncertain finding is not penalized as fabrication, and omission counts only confirmed-positive labels.

    “CheXpert's uncertain labels (-1) are stored separately: mentioning an uncertain finding is not penalized as fabrication, and omission counts only confirmed-positive labels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The 12 pathological CheXpert labels serve as ground truth, supplemented by original radiologist reports.

    “The 12 pathological CheXpert labels serve as ground truth, supplemented by original radiologist reports.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-judge reliability (2,158 records with both Gemini and GPT-5.1 judges): κ=0.515, 97.4% agreement, 76.1% severity-3 concordance.

    “Inter-judge reliability (2,158 records with both Gemini and GPT-5.1 judges): κ=0.515, 97.4% agreement, 76.1% severity-3 concordance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CHAIR checks whether captioned objects appear in ground truth.

    “In the general domain, CHAIR (Caption Hallucination Assessment with Image Relevance) [11] checks whether captione d objects appear in ground truth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Auto-detection relies on 12 CheXpert NLP-extracted labels, with 0.29% of fabrications falling outside these.

    “Auto-detection relies on 12 CheXpert NLP-extracted labels (0.29% of fabrications fall outside these)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The LLM judge may introduce same-family bias (κ=0.150 reflects near-uniform positive predictions).

    “The LLM judge may introduce same-family bias (κ=0.150reflects near-uniform positive predictions)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Higher bars at high confidence indicate 'confidently wrong' predictions.

    “Higher bars at high confidence indicate”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CheXpert labels are used as ground truth for chest radiograph findings.

    “CheXpert label distribution across 856 images.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Open-source models use 4-bit quantization vs. full-precision commercial APIs, though gaps are not consistently in one direction.

    “bit quantization vs. full-precision commercial APIs, though gaps are not consistently in one direction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    GPT-5.1 severity via auto-detection has recall 0.675-0.853, which may underestimate its true severe rate.

    “† GPT-5.1 severity via auto-detection (recall 0.675-0.853),which may underestimate its true severe rate; GPT-5.1 serves as cross-validation judge for other models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    GPT-5.1 severity uses auto-detection to avoid circular evaluation.

    “GPT-5.1 severity uses auto-detection to avoid circular evaluation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
66 of 66

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most prior work treats hallucination as binary, without distinguishing fabrication from omission.

    “Most treat hallucination as binary, without distinguishing fabrication from omission, and few propose mitigation beyond model retraining.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few prior works propose mitigation beyond model retraining.

    “Most treat hallucination as binary, without distinguishing fabrication from omission, and few propose mitigation beyond model retraining.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Expert annotators are scarce in medical AI.

    “In medical AI, where expert annotators are scarce, this approach is particularly attractive.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Large language models are now routinely used as automated evaluators.

    “Large language models are now routinely used as automated evaluators, offering a scalable alternative to human annotation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    LLMs offer a scalable alternative to human annotation.

    “Large language models are now routinely used as automated evaluators, offering a scalable alternative to human annotation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    CheXpert labels and radiologist reports provide accurate ground truth for chest X-ray findings.

    “compares against ground truth to identify fabrications and omissions per finding.”
    “The judge receives CheXpert labels (positive and uncertain), the radiologist report, and the model output”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The human annotations by two co-authors with clinical informatics training are accurate ground truth for validation.

    “We validate against 250 stratified human annotations by two co-authors with clinical informatics training (disagreements resolved by discussion).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The eight hallucination categories and three severity levels adequately capture clinically relevant hallucinations.

    “We define eight hallucination categories across three groups (Table 3), each assigned severity 1 (minor, e.g., over-stating”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Training corpora over-represent abnormal reports.

    “training corpora over-represent abnormal reports”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The clinical reasoning prompt encourages speculation on normal studies.

    “The clinical reasoning prompt may also encourage speculation on normal studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Negation-aware keyword detection accurately identifies hallucinations in model outputs.

    “Auto: negation-aware keyword detection.”
    “Auto-detection hallucination rate (%)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The proposed eight-category taxonomy comprehensively covers hallucination types in chest radiograph interpretation.

    “Eight-category hallucination taxonomy with severity ranges.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 856-image dataset is representative of chest radiograph interpretation tasks.

    “CheXpert label distribution across 856 images.”
13 of 13

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Related

Authors
Wang, H., & Li, Z.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Institute for Medical Informatics and Biostatistics (CH)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2605.20469
arXiv
2605.20469
OpenAlex
W7161965182
Cited by
0
References
22
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
hallucination detection, vision-language models, chest X-ray interpretation, medical image interpretation, hallucination taxonomy, ensemble learning, hallucination mitigation, MIMIC-CXR, response length, patient safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-29.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-29.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review