Pal Halvorsen

Sushant Gautam, Cise Midoglu, Vajira Thambawita et al.

Hallucinations in video-capable vision-language models (Video-VLMs) remain frequent and high-confidence, while existing uncertainty metrics often fail to align with correctness. We introduce VideoHEDGE, a modular framework for hallucination detection in video question answering that extends entropy-based reliability estimation from images to temporally structured inputs. Given a video-question pair, VideoHEDGE draws a baseline answer and multiple high-temperature generations from both clean clips and photometrically and spatiotemporally perturbed variants, then clusters the resulting textual outputs into semantic hypotheses using either Natural Language Inference (NLI)-based or embedding-based methods. Cluster-level probability masses yield three reliability scores: Semantic Entropy (SE), RadFlag, and Vision-Amplified Semantic Entropy (VASE). We evaluate VideoHEDGE on the SoccerChat benchmark using an LLM-as-a-judge to obtain binary hallucination labels. Across three 7B Video-VLMs (Qwen2-VL, Qwen2.5-VL, and a SoccerChat-finetuned model), VASE consistently achieves the highest ROC-AUC, especially at larger distortion budgets, while SE and RadFlag often operate near chance. We further show that embedding-based clustering matches NLI-based clustering in detection performance at substantially lower computational cost, and that domain fine-tuning reduces hallucination frequency but yields only modest improvements in calibration. The hedge-bench PyPI library enables reproducible and extensible benchmarking, with full code and experimental resources available at https://github.com/Simula/HEDGE#videohedge .

Annika Reinke, Evangelia Christodoulou, Sthuthi Sadananda et al.

Benchmarking competitions are central to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging, defining performance standards and shaping methodological progress. However, it remains unclear whether these benchmarks provide data that are sufficiently representative, accessible, and reusable to support clinically meaningful AI. In this work, we assess fairness along two complementary dimensions: (1) whether challenge datasets are representative of real-world clinical diversity, and (2) whether they are accessible and legally reusable in line with the FAIR principles. To address this question, we conducted a large-scale systematic study of 241 biomedical image analysis challenges comprising 458 tasks across 19 imaging modalities. Our findings show substantial biases in dataset composition, including geographic location, modality-, and problem type-related biases, indicating that current benchmarks do not adequately reflect real-world clinical diversity. Despite their widespread influence, challenge datasets were frequently constrained by restrictive or ambiguous access conditions, inconsistent or non-compliant licensing practices, and incomplete documentation, limiting reproducibility and long-term reuse. Together, these shortcomings expose foundational fairness limitations in our benchmarking ecosystem and highlight a disconnect between leaderboard success and clinical relevance.