The paper shows that chain‑of‑thought (CoT) instructions can distort multiple‑choice vision‑language model evaluation when a scorer appends a reasoning cue but reads answer‑label logits before the model generates any rationale. This CoT‑prefix scoring causes significant drops in accuracy (e.g., Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B falls from 80.76% to 45.48% on ScienceQA) and leads most predictions to choose the first option. Analysis reveals that while answer information remains linearly accessible in late layers, the immediate readout is misled by probability mass shifting toward continuation tokens, and the issue varies across datasets and models.
arXiv:2603. 16728v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings where reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) is as important as predictive accuracy.
By Robert Welch, Emir Konuk, Kevin Smith
arXiv:2607. 12815v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a test-time scaling strategy for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it remains unclear what is extended when VLMs generate longer reasoning traces.
By Hiroto Osaka, Shohei Taniguchi, Gouki Minegishi, Kai Yamashita, Masahiro Suzuki, Yutaka Matsuo
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a test-time scaling strategy for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it remains unclear what is extended when VLMs generate longer reasoning traces. We ask whether CoT requires continued access to image tokens, or whether it mainly operates over visual information already made available earlier in the forward pass.
arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
By Kyle Cox, Darius Kianersi, Adri\`a Garriga-Alonso
The paper introduces a free, label‑free visual evidence signal that improves fine‑grained vision‑language reasoning. By selecting image crops that maximize the model’s answer distribution peak, the method locates answer‑bearing regions without training or annotations, boosting accuracy from 70 % to 85 %. The evidence gap also complements model confidence, enabling better correctness prediction and error flagging.
By Santi Ram Tiwari, Nihal Naik, Devbrat Pandey, Nishant Sinha
arXiv:2607. 08059v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty quantification for visual language models (VLMs) conventionally targets the answer token distribution.
By Mayank Singal
arXiv:2607. 09438v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling (TTS) reliably improves reasoning in large language models, but whether it transfers to small open vision-language models remains unclear.
By Spiros Baxevanakis, Peng-Jian Yang
arXiv:2607. 15565v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Where should the question go in a vision-language model (VLM) prompt: before the image or after it?
By Rakshanda Hassan Abhinandan, John Galeotti, Deva Ramanan, Gautam Rajendrakumar Gare
Vision‑language models (VLMs) can lose accuracy when images are resized, even with minimal changes. The study shows that such small visual configuration changes—like tiling or token arrangement—cause more correctness flips across multiple checkpoints and benchmarks. Interestingly, in many cases the models still read the correct answer but fail to use it, and attention interventions reveal that configuration shifts weaken the use of readable information. By guiding models with field cues and their own transcriptions, the authors correct 97.2% of these errors.
By Dingyang Lin, Yingfeng Luo, Chenglong Wang, Chenwei Zhu, Anxiang Ma, Jingbo Zhu, Tong Xiao
arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.
By Rongyu Yu, Ke Niu, Fengxiang He
arXiv:2608. 15445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a reward is correct on every training example yet consistent with more than one goal, a model can acquire an unintended one, a failure known as goal misgeneralization.
By Suyash Maniyar, Armaan Sandhu, Abhishek Mishra