PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Applied Sciences· 2026Q2

Beyond Answer Accuracy: An Audit-First Framework for Claim-Level Faithfulness Evaluation of Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Chest X-Ray Question Answering

Becky Firomssa Gudeta, Saurabh Singh

Short summary

A new audit-first framework evaluates faithfulness in chest X-ray QA by tracking retrieval traces and mapping claims to evidence, achieving a Claim Support Score of 0.724-0.760 with retrieval and reducing Hallucination Rate to 0.148-0.210.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Proposes an audit-first framework logging retrieval traces and per-claim citation maps for faithfulness evaluation.
  • Introduces Claim Support Score (0.724-0.760 with retrieval) and Hallucination Rate (0.148-0.210 in highest support band).
  • Evaluated on three radiology vision–language model backbones using a credentialed chest radiograph dataset.
  • Findings suggest evidence coverage is a key factor in reducing hallucinations.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Radiology vision–language models can generate fluent chest X-ray answers that contain unsupported assertions when individual claims are not verifiably grounded in retrieved evidence. Answer-level similarity and coarse label agreement cannot detect such failures because they do not preserve the evidence chain behind each output. This paper proposes an audit-first evaluation framework that logs, for each query, the retrieval trace, a per-claim citation map, schema enforcement actions, and system telemetry. Claim-level faithfulness is measured by a Claim Support Score and a Hallucination Rate that sum to one by construction over the claims actually delivered. On a de-identified, credentialed-access chest radiograph dataset with three radiology vision–language model backbones, reference-aligned Claim Support Score without retrieval ranges from 0.605 to 0.655, and evidence-linked Claim Support Score with retrieval ranges from 0.724 to 0.760. These use different reference standards and are reported as complementary measurements, not compared directly. With retrieval, Hallucination Rate falls from 0.332 to 0.388 in the lowest retrieval-support band to 0.148 to 0.210 in the highest, suggesting evidence coverage as a candidate lever. The automated support labels have not yet been validated by independent clinical expert annotation, so findings are evaluation results rather than clinical safety evidence.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Applied Sciences, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionComputer Science