arXiv AI

TRAPSBench: Vision-Language Models Encode but Fail to Express Epistemic Restraint

arXiv:2608. 13167v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When visual evidence is occluded or chaotic, models should abstain.

arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 18

Stress Tests REVEAL Fragile Temporal and Visual Grounding in Video-Language Models

The paper introduces REVEAL, a diagnostic benchmark that stresses Video‑Language Models (VidLMs) on five controlled probes—camera‑motion sensitivity, cross‑frame integration, video sycophancy, language‑only shortcuts, and temporal expectation bias—to assess how well these models encode and use visual evidence. Experiments on 12 VidLMs reveal systematic failures: some visual signals are never reliably encoded, while others are overridden by model priors, leading to performance below chance on several probes that humans solve with high accuracy. Mechanistic probes further pinpoint where and why visual evidence is lost, demonstrating that under assertive prompts a model’s output becomes nearly invariant to real versus random video input, rendering visual evidence causally inert.

By Sethuraman T V, Savya Khosla, Aditi Tiwari, Vidya Ganesh, Rakshana Jayaprakash, Aditya Jain, Vignesh Srinivasakumar, Onkar Kishor Susladkar, Srinidhi Sunkara, Aditya Shanmugham, Rakesh Vaideeswaran, Abbaas Alif Mohamed Nishar, Simon Jenni, Rohan Maheshwari, Derek Hoiem
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Counterfactual Tests for Measuring Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness in Visual Language Models

The paper introduces visual adaptations of counterfactual tests—vCT and vCCT—to evaluate whether chain-of-thought explanations in vision‑language models faithfully reflect the visual evidence driving predictions. Using these tests, the authors benchmark eight open‑source VLMs on two datasets and find that CoTs often fail to track visual evidence, sometimes omitting removed objects or mentioning them inconsistently. They also release two new datasets, Counter‑SNLI‑VE and Counter‑A‑OKVQA, consisting of image pairs that differ by a single object to facilitate further research.

By Bayar Menzat, Maximilian S\"uss, Ruizhi Wang, Benno Steinegger, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Oana-Maria Camburu
arXiv AI
Jun 19

SPOT-E: Test-Time Entropy Shaping with Visual Spotlights for Frozen VLMs

arXiv:2606. 20244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often underperform on evidence intensive tasks because decisive visual evidence are small, localized, and easy to overlook, leading to failures in evidence readout even when high-level reasoning is intact.

By Bo Yin, Xiaobin Hu, Chengming Xu, Ruolin Shen, Mo Yang, Jiangning Zhang, Peng-Tao Jiang, Cheng Tan, Shuicheng YAN
arXiv AI
Sep 16

Same Answer, Different Representations: Hidden instability in VLMs

arXiv:2602.06652v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions r...

By Farooq Ahmad Wani, Alessandro Suglia, Rohit Saxena, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Wai-Chung Kwan, Fazl Barez, Maria Sofia Bucarelli, Fabrizio Silvestri, Pasquale Minervini
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 3

PhyCheck: Fine-Grained Evidence-Grounded Dataset for Physical Law Understanding in Video-LLMs

Embodied intelligence and world models require video understanding systems to go beyond recognizing objects and actions and develop an understanding of physical regularities. However, despite their strong performance on general video understanding tasks, current video-language models still struggle to reliably determine whether an observed event conforms to specific physical laws.