Medical AI Encodes a "Feeling of Error": Verifying Cancer Segmentation via Internal Concepts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Cancer segmentation models can fail silently, generating plausible but incorrect masks that risk missed findings or unnecessary biopsies. A critical question arises: Do AI models "know" when they are wrong, and if so, can we use the signal to predict their own failures? Humans do have a "Feeling of Error" (FOE): a spontaneous sense of unease that flags a potential error during thinking. We investigate whether cancer segmentation models exhibit an analogous internal signal. Unlike output-level cues (e.g., prediction confidence or uncertainty), which offer no insight into why a failure occurs and suffer from a sensitivity-quality tradeoff where high detection sensitivity could degrade overall segmentation quality. We instead propose to capture the model's FOE from its inner workings. Using mechanistic interpretability tools, specifically Sparse Autoencoders, we decompose internal neural activations into a dictionary of human-interpretable concepts and show that failure cases exhibit a distinct latent signature: fewer active concepts with lower activation magnitudes compared to successful segmentation. By training a classifier on these concept activations, we achieve accurate failure detection along with explanations for the model's mistakes. Experiments on prostate, pancreatic, and brain cancer segmentation demonstrate that our approach outperforms output-based methods in failure detection while preserving segmentation quality.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 51 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Sep 2026.
Builds on
51 of 73 references.
References · 51
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,604
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2016A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networkscited by 2,362
- 2021TransUNet: Transformers Make Strong Encoders for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,552
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
38 more
- 2020Energy-based Out-of-distribution Detectioncited by 1,296
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,274
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
- 2022Swin UNETR: Swin Transformers for Semantic Segmentation of Brain Tumors in MRI Imagescited by 823
- 2021The Medical Segmentation Decathloncited by 620
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 415
- 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 401
- 2022Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 289
- 2018Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networkscited by 278
- 2021SMIL: Multimodal Learning with Severely Missing Modalitycited by 243
- 2023Causal Abstraction: A Theoretical Foundation for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 194
- 2019Causality matters in medical imagingcited by 193
- 2022Are Multimodal Transformers Robust to Missing Modality?cited by 183
- 2025Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 173
- 2023Multi-modal Learning with Missing Modality via Shared-Specific Feature Modellingcited by 159
- 2021Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Imagescited by 132
- 2024BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoderscited by 126
- 2023SAM-Med2Dcited by 123
- 2024BiomedParse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of everything everywhere all at oncecited by 107
- 2023Interpretability at Scale: Identifying Causal Mechanisms in Alpacacited by 102
- 2023MA-SAM: Modality-agnostic SAM Adaptation for 3D Medical Image Segmentationcited by 82
- 2023AutoSAM: Adapting SAM to Medical Images by Overloading the Prompt Encodercited by 70
- 2025Universal Sparse Autoencoders: Interpretable Cross-Model Concept Alignmentcited by 62
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 58
- 2023Unsupervised Compositional Concepts Discovery with Text-to-Image Generative Modelscited by 36
- 2025We Can't Understand AI Using our Existing Vocabularycited by 25
- 2024An X-Ray Is Worth 15 Features: Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretable Radiology Report Generationcited by 23
- 2025Verifying Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Its Computational Graphcited by 20
- 2022Medical Image Segmentation on MRI Images with Missing Modalities: A Reviewcited by 18
- 2024Self-eXplainable AI for Medical Image Analysis: A Survey and New Outlookscited by 18
- 2024Aligning Human Knowledge with Visual Concepts Towards Explainable Medical Image Classificationcited by 17
- 2025PanTS: The Pancreatic Tumor Segmentation Datasetcited by 15
- 2024Learning biologically relevant features in a pathology foundation model using sparse autoencoderscited by 14
- 2024Unsupervised Concept Discovery Mitigates Spurious Correlationscited by 11
- 2025CytoSAE: Interpretable Cell Embeddings for Hematologycited by 8
- 2025Interpretable Failure Detection with Human-Level Conceptscited by 7
- 2026Inside the Visual Mind: Neuroscience-Motivated Concept Circuits for Interpreting and Steering Vision Transformerscited by 3
50 most cited of 51 All 51 (JSON)
Built on by
Not cited yet.