Reliable evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs) and medical vision-language models (Medical-VLMs) requires calibrated confidence, particularly under realistic clinical conditions. However, existing efforts mainly focused on improving accuracy, leaving calibration in the medical domain underexplored. To this end, we propose MVC-Bench, a calibration-centric benchmark for medical image classification with VLMs and Medical-VLMs. MVC-Bench assesses the calibration across three axes: (i) robustness to modality, backbone, and domain shift (ii) effectiveness of calibration strategies and prompt-tuning methods (iii) stability under prompt-template and random-seed variations. The benchmark covers eight different backbones, three medical modalities, including fundus imaging, histopathology, and chest X-ray under in-domain and domain shift settings. It compares post-hoc calibration, train-time calibration, and zero-shot inference methods, together with six prompt-tuning methods. Across more than 1638 controlled experiments, we report accuracy and Expected Calibration Error (ECE) as primary metrics, and further report results with complementary calibration measures, including Maximum Calibration Error (MCE) and Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE). We further investigate the underlying causes of miscalibration in VLMs and Medical-VLMs and propose a simple train-time calibration method, Multi-Class Margin (MCM) regularization, which achieves lowest ECE on 10 out of 12 settings in in-domain and remains competitive under domain shifts. Collectively, MVC-Bench provides a structured evaluation framework and actionable guidance for improving calibration in safety-critical medical workflows.

In the age of advanced large language models (LLMs), the boundaries between human and AI-generated text are becoming increasingly blurred. We address the challenge of segmenting mixed-authorship text, that is identifying transition points in text where authorship shifts from human to AI or vice-versa, a problem with critical implications for authenticity, trust, and human oversight. We introduce a novel framework, called Info-Mask for mixed authorship detection that integrates stylometric cues, perplexity-driven signals, and structured boundary modeling to accurately segment collaborative human-AI content. To evaluate the robustness of our system against adversarial perturbations, we construct and release an adversarial benchmark dataset Mixed-text Adversarial setting for Segmentation (MAS), designed to probe the limits of existing detectors. Beyond segmentation accuracy, we introduce Human-Interpretable Attribution (HIA) overlays that highlight how stylometric features inform boundary predictions, and we conduct a small-scale human study assessing their usefulness. Across multiple architectures, Info-Mask significantly improves span-level robustness under adversarial conditions, establishing new baselines while revealing remaining challenges. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of adversarially robust, interpretable mixed-authorship detection, with implications for trust and oversight in human-AI co-authorship.