arXiv subjects

Tim Rädsch

Publications and source records attributed to Tim Rädsch.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Physics-IQ Verified

Video generative models ( VGMs) have become a new frontier that can be used not just for video generation but for a multitude of downstream tasks, including world modeling. To advance these tasks, a good video model must understand the physical reality of the world. Evaluating this understanding is an emerging field and has led to the Physics-IQ benchmark, which quantifies this explicitly by comparing model-generated videos to real-world videos of physical experiments. In this work, we present a systematic audit of the Physics-IQ benchmark, expose shortcomings and propose three solutions that sharpen how we can measure physical understanding of VGMs. Specifically, we improve prompt and ground-truth quality to reduce the influence of confounding factors and further introduce a sample-level scoring system that weights each sample and metric equally. Our resulting benchmark, Physics-IQ Verified, refines 57.6\% of all samples and improves over 34.8\% of prompts. In a comparison study using six image-to-video generative models, we observe moderate but meaningful ranking changes (Kendall's $\tau = 0.46$). We hope Physics-IQ Verified advances the community by providing a more reliable signal toward physically accurate VGMs. The code for the benchmark can be accessed at https://github.com/google-deepmind/physics-iq-benchmark

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Medical Imaging AI Competitions Lack Fairness

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 capture the diversity of real-world clinical data, 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 249 biomedical image analysis challenges comprising 458 tasks across 19 imaging modalities. Our findings reveal limited representation across challenge datasets with respect to geographic location, imaging modalities, and problem types, raising concerns about how well current benchmarks 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.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

6 Fingers, 1 Kidney: Natural Adversarial Medical Images Reveal Critical Weaknesses of Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows. However, existing benchmarks primarily assess performance on common anatomical presentations and fail to capture the challenges posed by rare variants. To address this gap, we introduce AdversarialAnatomyBench, the first benchmark comprising naturally occurring rare anatomical variants across diverse imaging modalities and anatomical regions. We call such variants that violate learned priors about "typical" human anatomy natural adversarial anatomy. Benchmarking 25 state-of-the-art VLMs with AdversarialAnatomyBench yielded three key insights. First, when queried with basic medical perception tasks, mean accuracy dropped from 71% on typical to 28% on atypical anatomy. Even the best-performing models, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Llama 4 Maverick, showed performance drops of 41-51%. Second, model errors closely mirrored expected anatomical biases. Third, neither model scaling nor interventions, including bias-aware prompting and test-time reasoning, resolved these issues. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current VLMs: their poor generalization to rare anatomical presentations. AdversarialAnatomyBench provides a foundation for systematically measuring and mitigating anatomical bias in multimodal medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Current validation practice undermines surgical AI development

Surgical data science (SDS) is rapidly advancing, yet clinical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in surgery remains limited, with inadequate validation as an important contributing factor. Existing validation practices often neglect the temporal and hierarchical structure of intraoperative videos, yielding misleading or clinically irrelevant results. We introduce a comprehensive catalogue of validation pitfalls in AI-based surgical video analysis, derived from a multi-stage Delphi process with 92 international experts. Pitfalls span three categories: (1) data, (2) metric selection/configuration, and (3) aggregation and reporting. A systematic review of surgical AI papers reveals that these pitfalls are widespread. Experiments on surgical video datasets show that ignoring temporal and hierarchical data structures can understate uncertainty, obscure critical failure modes, and alter algorithm rankings. To address these shortcomings, we provide consensus-based best practices compiled. Together, this work provides an evidence-based framework for rigorous validation of surgical video analysis algorithms, guiding benchmarking, reporting, regulatory review, and clinical translation.

q-bio.OT↗

arXiv2025

Challenging Vision-Language Models with Surgical Data: A New Dataset and Broad Benchmarking Study

While traditional computer vision models have historically struggled to generalize to endoscopic domains, the emergence of foundation models has shown promising cross-domain performance. In this work, we present the first large-scale study assessing the capabilities of Vision Language Models (VLMs) for endoscopic tasks with a specific focus on laparoscopic surgery. Using a diverse set of state-of-the-art models, multiple surgical datasets, and extensive human reference annotations, we address three key research questions: (1) Can current VLMs solve basic perception tasks on surgical images? (2) Can they handle advanced frame-based endoscopic scene understanding tasks? and (3) How do specialized medical VLMs compare to generalist models in this context? Our results reveal that VLMs can effectively perform basic surgical perception tasks, such as object counting and localization, with performance levels comparable to general domain tasks. However, their performance deteriorates significantly when the tasks require medical knowledge. Notably, we find that specialized medical VLMs currently underperform compared to generalist models across both basic and advanced surgical tasks, suggesting that they are not yet optimized for the complexity of surgical environments. These findings highlight the need for further advancements to enable VLMs to handle the unique challenges posed by surgery. Overall, our work provides important insights for the development of next-generation endoscopic AI systems and identifies key areas for improvement in medical visual language models.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Bridging vision language model (VLM) evaluation gaps with a framework for scalable and cost-effective benchmark generation

Reliable evaluation of AI models is critical for scientific progress and practical application. While existing VLM benchmarks provide general insights into model capabilities, their heterogeneous designs and limited focus on a few imaging domains pose significant challenges for both cross-domain performance comparison and targeted domain-specific evaluation. To address this, we propose three key contributions: (1) a framework for the resource-efficient creation of domain-specific VLM benchmarks enabled by task augmentation for creating multiple diverse tasks from a single existing task, (2) the release of new VLM benchmarks for seven domains, created according to the same homogeneous protocol and including 162,946 thoroughly human-validated answers, and (3) an extensive benchmarking of 22 state-of-the-art VLMs on a total of 37,171 tasks, revealing performance variances across domains and tasks, thereby supporting the need for tailored VLM benchmarks. Adoption of our methodology will pave the way for the resource-efficient domain-specific selection of models and guide future research efforts toward addressing core open questions.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

In the Picture: Medical Imaging Datasets, Artifacts, and their Living Review

Datasets play a critical role in medical imaging research, yet issues such as label quality, shortcuts, and metadata are often overlooked. This lack of attention may harm the generalizability of algorithms and, consequently, negatively impact patient outcomes. While existing medical imaging literature reviews mostly focus on machine learning (ML) methods, with only a few focusing on datasets for specific applications, these reviews remain static -- they are published once and not updated thereafter. This fails to account for emerging evidence, such as biases, shortcuts, and additional annotations that other researchers may contribute after the dataset is published. We refer to these newly discovered findings of datasets as research artifacts. To address this gap, we propose a living review that continuously tracks public datasets and their associated research artifacts across multiple medical imaging applications. Our approach includes a framework for the living review to monitor data documentation artifacts, and an SQL database to visualize the citation relationships between research artifact and dataset. Lastly, we discuss key considerations for creating medical imaging datasets, review best practices for data annotation, discuss the significance of shortcuts and demographic diversity, and emphasize the importance of managing datasets throughout their entire lifecycle. Our demo is publicly available at http://inthepicture.itu.dk/.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Quality Assured: Rethinking Annotation Strategies in Imaging AI

This paper does not describe a novel method. Instead, it studies an essential foundation for reliable benchmarking and ultimately real-world application of AI-based image analysis: generating high-quality reference annotations. Previous research has focused on crowdsourcing as a means of outsourcing annotations. However, little attention has so far been given to annotation companies, specifically regarding their internal quality assurance (QA) processes. Therefore, our aim is to evaluate the influence of QA employed by annotation companies on annotation quality and devise methodologies for maximizing data annotation efficacy. Based on a total of 57,648 instance segmented images obtained from a total of 924 annotators and 34 QA workers from four annotation companies and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we derived the following insights: (1) Annotation companies perform better both in terms of quantity and quality compared to the widely used platform MTurk. (2) Annotation companies' internal QA only provides marginal improvements, if any. However, improving labeling instructions instead of investing in QA can substantially boost annotation performance. (3) The benefit of internal QA depends on specific image characteristics. Our work could enable researchers to derive substantially more value from a fixed annotation budget and change the way annotation companies conduct internal QA.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation

Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation

Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story

While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. These are typically related to (1) the disregard of inherent metric properties, such as the behaviour in the presence of class imbalance or small target structures, (2) the disregard of inherent data set properties, such as the non-independence of the test cases, and (3) the disregard of the actual biomedical domain interest that the metrics should reflect. This living dynamically document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. In this context, it focuses on biomedical image analysis problems that can be phrased as image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection task. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts from more than 60 institutions worldwide.

eess.IV↗

arXiv2023

Intuitive Surgical SurgToolLoc and SurgVU Challenges Results: 2022-2025

Robotic assisted (RA) surgery promises to transform surgical intervention. Intuitive Surgical is committed to fostering these changes and the machine learning models and algorithms that will enable them. With these goals in mind we have invited the surgical data science community to participate in a yearly competition hosted through the Medical Imaging Computing and Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI) conference. With varying changes from year to year, we have challenged the community to solve difficult machine learning problems in the context of advanced RA applications. Here we document the results of these challenges, focusing on surgical tool localization (SurgToolLoc) and surgical visual understanding (SurgVU). The publicly released dataset that accompanies these challenges is detailed in a separate paper arXiv:2501.09209 [1].

cs.CV↗

arXiv2023

Why is the winner the best?

International benchmarking competitions have become fundamental for the comparative performance assessment of image analysis methods. However, little attention has been given to investigating what can be learnt from these competitions. Do they really generate scientific progress? What are common and successful participation strategies? What makes a solution superior to a competing method? To address this gap in the literature, we performed a multi-center study with all 80 competitions that were conducted in the scope of IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021. Statistical analyses performed based on comprehensive descriptions of the submitted algorithms linked to their rank as well as the underlying participation strategies revealed common characteristics of winning solutions. These typically include the use of multi-task learning (63%) and/or multi-stage pipelines (61%), and a focus on augmentation (100%), image preprocessing (97%), data curation (79%), and postprocessing (66%). The "typical" lead of a winning team is a computer scientist with a doctoral degree, five years of experience in biomedical image analysis, and four years of experience in deep learning. Two core general development strategies stood out for highly-ranked teams: the reflection of the metrics in the method design and the focus on analyzing and handling failure cases. According to the organizers, 43% of the winning algorithms exceeded the state of the art but only 11% completely solved the respective domain problem. The insights of our study could help researchers (1) improve algorithm development strategies when approaching new problems, and (2) focus on open research questions revealed by this work.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

Labeling instructions matter in biomedical image analysis

Biomedical image analysis algorithm validation depends on high-quality annotation of reference datasets, for which labeling instructions are key. Despite their importance, their optimization remains largely unexplored. Here, we present the first systematic study of labeling instructions and their impact on annotation quality in the field. Through comprehensive examination of professional practice and international competitions registered at the MICCAI Society, we uncovered a discrepancy between annotators' needs for labeling instructions and their current quality and availability. Based on an analysis of 14,040 images annotated by 156 annotators from four professional companies and 708 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) crowdworkers using instructions with different information density levels, we further found that including exemplary images significantly boosts annotation performance compared to text-only descriptions, while solely extending text descriptions does not. Finally, professional annotators constantly outperform MTurk crowdworkers. Our study raises awareness for the need of quality standards in biomedical image analysis labeling instructions.

cs.CV↗