arXiv:2608. 06270v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The "thinking-with-images" paradigm equips multimodal LLMs with active visual operations such as crop-and-zoom.
arXiv:2607. 26769v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal large language models increasingly use sketches, annotations, tools, and intermediate images during reasoning, but it remains unclear whether they truly rely on these visual states.
arXiv:2609.36838v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual agents solve problems by interleaving reasoning with image operations, and on-policy distillation (OPD) provides guidance from a strong teache...
Visual tool use has emerged as a fundamental capability for multimodal agents to actively acquire evidence beyond a fixed image encoding. The prevailing recipe learns this capability from teacher-generated trajectories filtered for answer correctness, implicitly assuming that every successful demonstration provides effective supervision.
arXiv:2608. 08907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Thinking with images allows a multimodal model to compensate for limited perception by invoking visual tools through code.
arXiv:2609.22588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform strongly on visual question answering benchmarks, yet often make decisions that contradict visual evidence they h...
arXiv:2606. 00096v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual agents employ external visual tools within visual chains of thought to incorporate fine-grained evidence.
arXiv:2605.26380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have been reported to achieve over 90\% accuracy on fine-grained perception benchmarks. How...
arXiv:2608. 08557v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual tool use has emerged as a fundamental capability for multimodal agents to actively acquire evidence beyond a fixed image encoding.
arXiv:2604. 14888v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear.
arXiv:2607. 16311v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself.
arXiv:2606. 02735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generalization remains a central bottleneck for vision-language-action (VLA) models: under distractors, appearance shifts, and semantically similar tasks, the policy must often infer local execution details from coarse instructions while also deciding which parts of the image matter for control.
The paper introduces a causal and temporal evaluation framework for vision‑language models (VLMs) that tracks how visual input, question text, and generated prefixes influence autoregressive decoding. It defines three step‑indexed causal‑drive metrics—Visual Causal Drive (VCD), Question Causal Drive (QCD), and Prefix Causal Drive (PCD)—using a Structural Causal Model and interventions. Experiments on Qwen3‑VL‑8B‑Instruct and other datasets show a shift from early question and visual guidance to increased reliance on generated prefixes, and demonstrate that QCD and PCD reduce recovery error and improve bias detection.