Evaluating the Diagnostic Robustness of Vision-Language Models Under Visual and Textual Perturbations

Standard accuracy metrics for VLMs often mask significant reliability failures in sensitive domains. In this work, we utilize a histopathology-validated brain MRI dataset to systematically assess the diagnostic robustness of four VLM families under evidence-preserving perturbations. By reordering anatomical slices and swapping target label positions, we evaluate whether models maintain consistent predictions when clinical evidence remains invariant. Our results reveal significant vulnerabilities in presentation-order stability, with models exhibiting prediction flips in up to 48.9% of cases under simple sequence reversals. We further identify a textual selection bias, where label reordering triggers inconsistent diagnoses in up to 67.8% of cases despite identical visual inputs. Negative-control tests further reveal diagnostic overcommitment: models generate categorical diagnoses in up to 76.1% of cases after expert-annotated lesion slices are removed. These results demonstrate that high accuracy can overestimate clinical reliability, masking sensitivity to sequential presentation and textual framing that is not captured by aggregate accuracy. Our findings highlight the necessity of stability-based metrics for the deployment of VLMs in safety-critical clinical applications. Our evaluation data and code will be made public upon acceptance.

Uncertainty Is Not a Safety Net for Clinical VQA, but Can It Anticipate Model Failure?

Safe deployment of clinical vision-language models (VLMs) requires reliable uncertainty estimation (UE): a signal indicating when predictions should be trusted or escalated to a clinician. We test whether current UE methods actually deliver this signal. Benchmarking 8 methods across 12 VLMs on clinical visual question-answering (VQA), we find that UE quality is not an intrinsic property of the UE method: it tracks model accuracy, degrading precisely where the model performance is weakest, and therefore where reliability is most needed. When we stress-test models by hiding the correct option among the multiple-choice answers (NOTA perturbations), accuracy collapses while uncertainty barely changes, leaving models systematically miscalibrated. Yet, we find that uncertainty on the unperturbed input reliably anticipates which predictions will collapse under NOTA, indicating that UE in current VLMs carries diagnostic information about model fragility. Our results position UE as a diagnostic tool for identifying fragile predictions and motivate perturbation-based evaluation as a path toward safe clinical deployment.