SurgCheck: Do Vision-Language Models Really Look at Images in Surgical VQA?

TL;DR

SurgCheck is a diagnostic benchmark that reveals vision-language models in surgical VQA rely heavily on linguistic shortcuts rather than visual understanding, exposing limitations of current performance metrics.

Contribution

The paper introduces SurgCheck, a novel paired-question benchmark with grounding cues to quantify linguistic shortcut reliance in surgical VQA models.

Findings

Models show performance drops on less-biased questions, indicating reliance on linguistic shortcuts.

Text-only ablations suggest visual reasoning is minimal for action and target prediction.

SurgCheck exposes that high benchmark scores may not reflect true visual understanding.

Abstract

Purpose: Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promising performance in surgical visual question answering (VQA). However, existing surgical VQA datasets often contain linguistic shortcuts, where question phrasing implicitly constrains the answer space. It remains unclear whether reported performance reflects visual understanding or reliance on such linguistic shortcuts. Methods: We introduce SurgCheck, a diagnostic benchmark for quantifying linguistic shortcut reliance in surgical VQA. SurgCheck employs a paired-question design in which each surgical frame is associated with an original question containing entity names and a less-biased counterpart that removes these names while preserving identical visual content and ground-truth answers. The resulting performance gap provides a diagnostic signal of shortcut reliance. To ensure that the less-biased question remains well-defined even without entity names, four grounding cues are incorporated: bounding box, arrow, spatial position, and periphrasis. We evaluate both general-purpose and surgical-specific VLMs under zero-shot and fine-tuned settings on SurgCheck. To evaluate open-ended zero-shot responses, we introduce an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation protocol. Results: Using SurgCheck, we observe consistent performance degradation on less-biased questions across five VLMs, despite identical visual inputs. Text-only ablation reveals minimal performance drops for action and target prediction, indicating that action and target prediction is largely driven by linguistic shortcuts rather than visual reasoning. Conclusion: SurgCheck provides a controlled diagnostic framework that exposes failure modes masked by linguistic bias in existing surgical VQA benchmarks. Our findings demonstrate that strong benchmark performance does not necessarily imply faithful visual understanding, underscoring the need for bias-aware evaluation in surgical VQA.