179 questions
No questions match those filters.
A medical image segmentation model posts 99.2% test-set...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansA 99.2% accuracy number answers “does the model produce the correct label on held-out data drawn from the same distribution as training,” and nothing more. It doesn’t answer “does the model understand the thing it’s supposed to be detecting.” Those two questions can diverge badly, and the divergence is invisible to standard test-set evaluation precisely because a spurious shortcut that’s present in training data is usually present in the test split too — it’s the same distribution by construction.
This is the Clever Hans effect: a model that produces the right output by keying on an incidental correlate of the label rather than the underlying signal. A segmentation model can learn to detect a specific surgical instrument that only appears on screen during the correct phase of an operation, rather than learning the actual anatomical structure it’s meant to identify. Test accuracy stays high right up until the moment the tool changes or is out of frame, at which point confidence collapses in a way no offline metric predicted.
Certifying readiness requires probing causality rather than re-measuring correlation. Invariance testing rotates or crops the input in ways that don’t change the underlying anatomy — a properly-grounded model’s confidence should stay roughly stable, while a shortcut-learner often swings wildly because it was keying on precise pixel positions. The black-patch test is more direct: manually black out the target structure itself. A model that’s actually looking at the organ should immediately report “not found.” A model that keeps confidently predicting the target’s presence with the target erased is demonstrably looking at the background, not the anatomy — and no accuracy number would ever have surfaced that.