analiza aiqbench
This research addresses a critical bottleneck in evaluating AI radiology report generation models by demonstrating how superficial variations in human reporting styles can drastically skew performance metrics. The authors introduce a novel dataset and rewriting method that decouples clinical accuracy from stylistic conformity, ensuring fairer comparisons between different AI systems. By standardizing reference reports to reflect consistent clinical interpretations rather than arbitrary formatting choices, this work provides a more robust foundation for benchmarking medical AI tools.
Reporting Practice Matters: The Impact of Reference Choice on Chest X-ray Report Evaluation
arXiv:2609.19093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Radiologists follow heterogeneous reporting practices. Two radiologists examining the same image and identifying the same clinical findings might nevertheless compose superficially distinct reports, varying in terminology, shorthand, formatting, and level of detail. These variations in reporting norms represent an under-appreciated obstacle in efforts to evaluate AI-based radiology report generation (RRG) models, where machine-generated reports are typically assessed based on their concordance with human-generated references. In this paper, we quantify the sensitivity of established evaluation metrics to variations in reporting practices, revealing impacts large enough to alter the rankings of models. We introduce a radiologist-informed taxonomy of variations in radiology reporting practice and a method (ReRef) that rewrites reference reports along the axes of our taxonomy while preserving clinical interpretation. For instance, when comparing the performance of nine RRG models on MIMIC-CXR using RadCliQ-v1, condensing the discussion of normal findings in the reference reports causes Libra to drop from first to second place while CheXOne rises from third to first. Our results suggest that many current metrics fail to decouple clinical interpretation from conformity to reporting practices and that choosing the ``right'' references that accurately reflect the desired reporting practices can be important in practice. To support future research, we release MIMIC-CXR-Ext-ReRef, a radiologist-validated dataset of 120 (original, alternative) reference report pairs derived from MIMIC-CXR.
Abstract:Radiologists follow heterogeneous reporting practices. Two radiologists examining the same image and identifying the same clinical findings might nevertheless compose superficially distinct reports, varying in terminology, shorthand, formatting, and level of detail. These variations in reporting norms represent an under-appreciated obstacle in efforts to evaluate AI-based radiology report generation (RRG) models, where machine-generated reports are typically assessed based on their concordance with human-generated references. In this paper, we quantify the sensitivity of established evaluation metrics to variations in reporting practices, revealing impacts large enough to alter the rankings of models. We introduce a radiologist-informed taxonomy of variations in radiology reporting practice and a method (ReRef) that rewrites reference reports along the axes of our taxonomy while preserving clinical interpretation. For instance, when comparing the performance of nine RRG models on MIMIC-CXR using RadCliQ-v1, condensing the discussion of normal findings in the reference reports causes Libra to drop from first to second place while CheXOne rises from third to first. Our results suggest that many current metrics fail to decouple clinical interpretation from conformity to reporting practices and that choosing the ``right'' references that accurately reflect the desired reporting practices can be important in practice. To support future research, we release MIMIC-CXR-Ext-ReRef, a radiologist-validated dataset of 120 (original, alternative) reference report pairs derived from MIMIC-CXR.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.19093 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.19093v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.19093 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 312 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · 17 sept. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

The Cost of Utopias (a Dialog)
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026