aiqbench analysis
This research addresses distribution shifts in teledermatology by developing "reliable-input selection" methods that identify the most trustworthy image from multiple inputs without requiring retraining or access to private labels. The study benchmarks four inference-time strategies—such as embedding norms and prediction stability—to mitigate misclassification caused by variations in lighting, angle, and focus on frozen model backbones. While confidence-based selectors offer some improvement over blind selection, they fail to fully close the performance gap with an ideal oracle that knows ground truth labels.
Picking the Right Image to Classify: Reliable-Input Selection in Teledermatology
arXiv:2608.16198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dermatology models face distribution shifts in teledermatology settings, where submitted images differ from the training data in lighting, angle, distance, focus, and framing. These test-time images are ordinary clinical photographs, but some fall outside the model's training conditions, leading the model to often misclassify them due to shifts in acquisition between training and deployment. When multiple images of the same case exist (several photos of one patient or lesion), a natural way to improve accuracy is therefore to select the image the model is most likely to classify correctly. We call this task reliable-input selection. An oracle that, for each case, selects a correctly classified image when one exists raises weighted F1 by about 20 percentage points on average across six dermatology datasets and nine frozen backbones. This oracle is an upper bound that sees the labels, whereas a selector must choose blindly. Capturing this gain in practice is hard. A selector that needs no pretraining data applies to any frozen model, including those whose data is not public. It must judge reliability from quantities the model exposes at inference: its embeddings, their norms, and its confidence. We benchmark four such training-data-free selectors: the embedding norm, the neighborhood consensus among a case's images, the stability of the prediction under small perturbations, and the model's own confidence. No training-data-free selector substantially narrows this oracle gap. The best of them is the model's own confidence, but it recovers only a small part of the gap on the clinical datasets. A small labeled reference set does not help either: the best selector overall, a fusion of confidence and Mahalanobis distance, still leaves most of the gap. To our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce and benchmark reliable input selection, a clinically important, unsolved task.
Abstract:Dermatology models face distribution shifts in teledermatology settings, where submitted images differ from the training data in lighting, angle, distance, focus, and framing. These test-time images are ordinary clinical photographs, but some fall outside the model's training conditions, leading the model to often misclassify them due to shifts in acquisition between training and deployment. When multiple images of the same case exist (several photos of one patient or lesion), a natural way to improve accuracy is therefore to select the image the model is most likely to classify correctly. We call this task reliable-input selection. An oracle that, for each case, selects a correctly classified image when one exists raises weighted F1 by about 20 percentage points on average across six dermatology datasets and nine frozen backbones. This oracle is an upper bound that sees the labels, whereas a selector must choose blindly. Capturing this gain in practice is hard. A selector that needs no pretraining data applies to any frozen model, including those whose data is not public. It must judge reliability from quantities the model exposes at inference: its embeddings, their norms, and its confidence. We benchmark four such training-data-free selectors: the embedding norm, the neighborhood consensus among a case's images, the stability of the prediction under small perturbations, and the model's own confidence. No training-data-free selector substantially narrows this oracle gap. The best of them is the model's own confidence, but it recovers only a small part of the gap on the clinical datasets. A small labeled reference set does not help either: the best selector overall, a fusion of confidence and Mahalanobis distance, still leaves most of the gap. To our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce and benchmark reliable input selection, a clinically important, unsolved task.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.16198 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2608.16198v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16198 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 393 words
Related coverage

How to Choose the Best AI Model (Live, in Your Editor)
OpenRouter · Aug 25, 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · Aug 26, 2026

Presentation: From Thousands to One: Building LLM-Powered Selection Systems
InfoQ · Aug 17, 2026

Presentation: Engineering AI for Creativity and Curiosity on Mobile
InfoQ · Jul 21, 2026