arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2406.06007cs.LGcs.CLcs.CVcs.CY
收藏

CARES:医学视觉语言模型可信性综合基准

CARES: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Trustworthiness in Medical Vision Language Models

UNC-Chapel Hill(北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校);Monash University(莫纳什大学);UIUC(伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳-香槟分校);HKUST(香港科技大学);Brown University(布朗大学);University of Washington(华盛顿大学);Microsoft Research(微软研究院);UT Arlington(得克萨斯大学阿灵顿分校);Stanford University(斯坦福大学)
Peng Xia, Ze Chen, Juanxi Tian, Yangrui Gong, Ruibo Hou, Yue Xu, Zhenbang Wu, Zhiyuan Fan, Yiyang Zhou, Kangyu Zhu, Wenhao Zheng, Zhaoyang Wang, Xiao Wang, Xuch… 展开作者

Peng Xia, Ze Chen, Juanxi Tian, Yangrui Gong, Ruibo Hou, Yue Xu, Zhenbang Wu, Zhiyuan Fan, Yiyang Zhou, Kangyu Zhu, Wenhao Zheng, Zhaoyang Wang, Xiao Wang, Xuchao Zhang, Chetan Bansal, Marc Niethammer, Junzhou Huang, Hongtu Zhu, Yun Li, Jimeng Sun, Zongyuan Ge, Gang Li, James Zou, Huaxiu Yao

AI总结:

针对医学大视觉语言模型可信性未经验证的问题,提出覆盖5个维度、含4.1万问答对的CARES综合基准,发现现有模型存在事实错误、公平性不足等问题,并公开基准与代码。

摘要:

人工智能已对医学应用产生重大影响,尤其是医学大视觉语言模型(Med-LVLM)的出现,为自动化和个性化医疗的未来点燃了希望。然而,Med-LVLM的可信性尚未得到验证,给未来的模型部署带来了重大风险。本文提出CARES基准,旨在全面评估医学领域中Med-LVLM的可信性。我们从可信性、公平性、安全性、隐私性和鲁棒性五个维度评估Med-LVLM的可信性。CARES包含约4.1万道封闭和开放式的问答对,覆盖16种医学影像模态和27个解剖区域。分析显示,这些模型的可信性始终存在问题,常出现事实性错误,且无法在不同人口统计群体间保持公平性。此外,它们易受攻击,且缺乏隐私保护意识。我们已在https://cares-ai.github.io/公开发布该基准和代码。

英文摘要:

Artificial intelligence has significantly impacted medical applications, particularly with the advent of Medical Large Vision Language Models (Med-LVLMs), sparking optimism for the future of automated and personalized healthcare. However, the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs remains unverified, posing significant risks for future model deployment. In this paper, we introduce CARES and aim to comprehensively evaluate the Trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across the medical domain. We assess the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across five dimensions, including trustfulness, fairness, safety, privacy, and robustness. CARES comprises about 41K question-answer pairs in both closed and open-ended formats, covering 16 medical image modalities and 27 anatomical regions. Our analysis reveals that the models consistently exhibit concerns regarding trustworthiness, often displaying factual inaccuracies and failing to maintain fairness across different demographic groups. Furthermore, they are vulnerable to attacks and demonstrate a lack of privacy awareness. We publicly release our benchmark and code in https://cares-ai.github.io/.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑