arXiv:2606. 05966v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding and reasoning about the physical world is the foundation of intelligent behavior, yet state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) still fail at causal physical reasoning, often producing plausible but incorrect answers.
arXiv:2606. 11745v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Visual causal reasoning is essential for understanding and intervening in the physical world, requiring identification of causal variables from visual inputs and reasoning over intervention effects.
The paper argues that current embodied vision‑language planning benchmarks favor linguistic next‑token prediction over physically grounded next‑state reasoning, leading models to rely on language priors rather than true causal dependencies. To address this, the authors introduce Causal‑Plan‑Bench, a diagnostic suite covering four causal dimensions, and Causal‑Plan‑1M, a million‑scale corpus of explicit causal reasoning traces extracted from egocentric videos. Extensive experiments show that existing models perform poorly on these tasks, while a new model trained with a tailored recipe—Causal Planner based on Qwen3‑VL‑8B—achieves significant gains, demonstrating the feasibility of physically grounded causal reasoning.
CCRV-Bench is a constraint‑driven benchmark designed to evaluate visual causal reasoning in vision‑language models on single‑image physical scenarios. It assesses four causal task dimensions—causal relation discovery, state prediction, causal diagnosis, and intervention—while applying constraints such as entity symbolization, spatial grounding, factual adversarial constraints, and minimalist output constraints to reduce shortcut learning. Experiments on 15 multimodal models reveal that constraint sensitivity varies by task and model, with intervention and spatial grounding having the largest impact and factual adversarial constraints improving causal diagnosis across models.
arXiv:2609.13228v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision Language Models (VLMs) should rely on visual evidence that directly determines the correct answer, but supervision for grounding visual reasonin...
arXiv:2511. 18735v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In this work, we define Foresight Intelligence as the capability to anticipate and interpret future events-an ability essential for applications such as autonomous driving, yet largely overlooked by existing research.
arXiv:2609. 28366v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) offer a promising approach to long-tail autonomous driving, but existing driving datasets provide limited supervision for connecting decision-critical visual evidence with reasoning and planning.
PhysVista is a new benchmark that evaluates physical intelligence in Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) by integrating perception, reasoning, and plausibility assessment into a closed cognitive loop. It distinguishes between event‑level and scale‑level reasoning and tests models on both real‑world and AI‑generated videos to provide a holistic, fine‑grained analysis of physical understanding. Experiments show significant gaps in VLMs’ physical reasoning and plausibility assessment, underscoring the need for more principled, physically grounded multimodal designs.
arXiv:2607. 10190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on video understanding and visual question answering, yet they remain unreliable in reasoning about physical plausibility, where understanding object interactions, causal dynamics, and fundamental physical principles is essential.
arXiv:2606. 29984v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement Learning (RL) is an important paradigm for improving the reasoning capabilities of Vision-Language Models (VLMs).
The paper investigates how the order of generating explanations—whether a rationale is produced before or after the answer—affects vision‑language reasoning. By conducting controlled experiments on knowledge‑intensive QA, visual entailment, and compositional grounding tasks, the authors show that larger models are required for reliable rationale‑first generation, while answer‑first generation is less susceptible to format errors. The study concludes that explanation ordering, model scale, pre‑training knowledge, fine‑tuning, and task structure jointly influence prediction accuracy and reasoning faithfulness.
arXiv:2602. 20094v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) witness increasing deployment in complex, high-stakes decision-making scenarios, it becomes imperative to ground their reasoning in causality rather than spurious correlations.
arXiv:2606. 10833v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate strong performance on general multimodal reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to perform engineering reasoning remains largely unexplored.