arXiv:2607. 19793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal agentic search systems increasingly rely on external tools to answer knowledge-intensive visual questions.
By Zhengxian Wu, Junjie Gao, Kai Yang
As vision language models are increasingly deployed in clinical diagnosis, understanding how they internally resolve competing visual and textual signals becomes a safety imperative. Existing mechanis...
SalArt-VQA is a diagnostic benchmark that tests whether vision‑language models can understand salient artifacts in AI‑generated images. It includes 950 images and 3,681 multiple‑choice questions that assess artifact presence, semantic localization, spatial grounding, and evidence‑grounded defect identification. The benchmark reveals that high image‑level detection accuracy can mask failures in grounded understanding, showing a trade‑off between sensitivity and calibration.
By Ruotian Zhang, Xiaoxiao Sun, Junzhe Huang, James Burgess, Serena Yeung-Levy
arXiv:2610.27277v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Vision-language-action (VLA) models are sensitive to visual corruptions, but knowing that a corruption is typically harmful does not establish whethe...
By Carson Sobolewski, Anjali Parashar, Fei Chen, Yingke Li, Chuchu Fan
Large vision-language models can recognize the objects and attributes in a crowded scene yet assign an attribute to the wrong same-class instance. Generic visual-question-answering accuracy marks the...
arXiv:2609.38810v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: As vision language models are increasingly deployed in clinical diagnosis, understanding how they internally resolve competing visual and textual sig...
By Chunzheng Zhu, Jiaqi Zeng, Hongbo Zhao, Yihang Chen, Yijun Wang, Jianxin Lin
arXiv:2604. 08941v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Medical Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answering binary presence questions on chest radiographs can fail in two linked ways: they are confidently wrong, and they change answers when a clinically equivalent question is rephrased.
By Binesh Sadanandan, Vahid Behzadan
arXiv:2608. 10827v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical visual agents can use tools to inspect images and retrieve external knowledge, but indiscriminate tool use may introduce noisy or misleading evidence.
By Shengzhi Wang, Jun Yang, Kai Wu, Xiaozhong Ji, Yiwen Ye, Ziyang Chen, Mingliang Xiong, Wen Fang, Mingqing Liu, Mengyuan Xu, Miaoxuan Shan, Caiyan Liu, Bin He, Qingwen Liu
arXiv:2608. 16805v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large vision-language models can recognize the objects and attributes in a crowded scene yet assign an attribute to the wrong same-class instance.
By Yuanzhi Xu, Qian Gao, Jun Fan, Guohui Ding, Zhenyu Yang, Yuteng Xiao, Sixue Lin
The paper introduces Mind2Web-Injection, a benchmark of 9,954 instruction‑screenshot pairs designed to evaluate whether vision‑language models (VLMs) use visual evidence when judging conflicts between on‑screen text and user instructions. Across six VLMs, models with similar overall precision can differ dramatically in Evidence‑Aligned Detection (EAD), revealing that verdict‑only metrics miss critical grounding failures. The authors also propose two training‑free interventions—ReadGate and CmdCompare—to improve evidence grounding and instruction‑command consistency, and argue for separate reporting of verdict correctness, evidence localization, and counterfactual responsiveness.
By Suyoung Lee, Myungsub Choi
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.
By Jingyu Sun, Jiachen Tu, Yuyang Xue, Yaoxin Jiang, Guoyi Xu, Zhengtao Yao, Rui Qian, Yizheng Sun, Hongpeng Zhou, Jingyuan Sun, Yan Lin
arXiv:2610.32360v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) process images and text jointly, yet robustness evaluations often perturb these inputs separately or assess only predefin...
By Oliver Wei{\ss}l, Eduardo Breitembach, Andrea Stocco