Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.29152

From Augmentation to Synthetic Evidence: Evaluating Generated Chest Radiographs at Dataset Intake

Abstract

A generated chest radiograph can be useful as declared augmentation, but the same image becomes unsupported evidence when submitted as the record of a real examination. We study this problem by separating three questions: whether an image passes an automated quality check, whether an origin classifier flags it as generated, and whether a trusted record supports the claimed acquisition. In our experiments, Qwen selects up to 20 images from pools of 1,000 existing Cheff-identified or SynthCheX candidates. A receiver evaluates quality with MedGemma and predicted origin with a classifier on frozen DINOv3 features. Quality-based selection raises quality passes from 12 to 19 of 20 for Cheff-identified images and from 8 to 17 for SynthCheX. We find no evidence that selection improves passage through both checks: no selected Cheff-identified image passes both, while uniform, quality, and quality-constrained surrogate selection produce 2, 1, and 2 SynthCheX passes. On unprocessed test images, the origin classifier flags 4,677 of 5,000 SynthCheX images, but it also misclassify 110 of 2,297 NIH (real) images and 568 of 957 genuine images from another collection as fake. Our results further show that JPEG compression reduces SynthCheX-versus-NIH AUROC from 0.987 to 0.841. Even without processing, 152 SynthCheX images pass both pixel checks. These checks can filter submissions, but they cannot verify an acquisition claim. We strongly advocate that source and intended use must be recorded and checked separately for admission of chest radiographs in medical datasets.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shaikh Akib Shahriyar, Zinedine Sehili, Adam Arthur, Christopher Schwartz. 2026-10-21. From Augmentation to Synthetic Evidence: Evaluating Generated Chest Radiographs at Dataset Intake. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29152

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Bilateral Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Flatter Minima

Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM) enhances generalization by reducing a Max-Sharpness (MaxS). Despite the practical success, we empirically found that the MAxS behind SAM's generalization enhancements face the "Flatness Indicator Problem" (FIP), where SAM only considers the flatness in the direction of gradient ascent, resulting in a next minimization region that is not sufficiently flat. A better Flatness Indicator (FI) would bring a better generalization of neural networks. Because SAM is a greedy search method in nature. In this paper, we propose to utilize the difference between the training loss and the minimum loss over the neighborhood surrounding the current weight, which we denote as Min-Sharpness (MinS). By merging MaxS and MinS, we created a better FI that indicates a flatter direction during the optimization. Specially, we combine this FI with SAM into the proposed Bilateral SAM (BSAM) which finds a more flatter minimum than that of SAM. The theoretical analysis proves that BSAM converges to local minima. Extensive experiments demonstrate that BSAM offers superior generalization performance and robustness compared to vanilla SAM across various tasks, i.e., classification, transfer learning, human pose estimation, and network quantization.

cs.CV↗

Understanding Transformer-Based Vision Models via Modular Feature Inversion

Understanding the internal mechanisms of deep neural networks remains a central challenge in machine learning. In computer vision, one promising yet only preliminarily explored approach is feature inversion via inverse networks, which reconstructs images from intermediate representations using trained inverse networks. In this study, we revisit feature inversion via inverse networks, introducing a novel, modular variant that enables a computationally more efficient application of the technique while, in some cases, producing semantically more coherent image reconstructions. We apply our method to large-scale transformer-based vision models, specifically Detection Transformer, Vision Transformer, Swin Transformer, and Data-Efficient Image Transformer, analyzing the resulting reconstructions across network depth. Our main analysis compares Detection Transformer and Vision Transformer, which exhibit the most informative differences among the evaluated architectures. At the same time, results for Swin Transformer and Data-Efficient Image Transformer support the broader applicability of our framework. Our findings reveal gradual representational changes across transformer layers as a shared characteristic of Detection Transformer and Vision Transformer, as well as systematic differences in how they preserve contextual shape and fine-grained image details, and in their robustness to color perturbations. These findings deepen understanding of transformer-based vision models and demonstrate the utility of modular feature inversion as an interpretability tool.

cs.CV↗

Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs

Humans develop perception through a bottom-up hierarchy: from basic primitives and Gestalt principles to high-level semantics. Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are trained directly on complex downstream tasks. Does it guarantee their performance on these foundational visual capabilities? To systematically investigate this gap, we introduce VisFacor, a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from FRCT, a well-established cognitive psychology assessment spanning four domains of human visual cognition. Furthermore, we design algorithms to automatically construct and validate unlimited test cases with controllable difficulty. Using VisFacor, we evaluate 39 frontier MLLMs, including both proprietary (e.g., GPT, Gemini) and open-source (e.g., LLaMA, Qwen) models. The best model achieves a score of only 55.9%. Analysis reveals good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94) and construct validity (compared to existing vision benchmarks). Models consistently fail on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination, regardless of model size or prompting strategy. These findings suggest that performance improvements on existing general benchmarks might represent castles in the air instead of a genuine mastery of human-like visual cognition.

cs.CV↗