The paper shows that the wording of prompts in vision‑language models (VLMs) can either improve or worsen robustness to image corruption. Verbose prompts broaden the cross‑modal attention’s frequency filter, making the model less sensitive to corruptions, while semantically complex prompts narrow the filter and increase vulnerability. Experiments on Qwen3‑VL and LLaVA‑OneVision confirm that adding padding or verbose phrasing reduces answer drift by 70–81% on 8B models.
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?
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...
arXiv:2606. 13870v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer image-based questions confidently, and often correctly, even when no image is provided.
arXiv:2602. 00344v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is one of the dominant paradigms for enhancing Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) on knowledge-based VQA tasks, recent work attributes RAG failures to insufficient attention towards the retrieved context, proposing to reduce the attention allocated to image tokens.
arXiv:2609.38368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly reason over visual evidence that is cropped, segmented, retrieved, or revealed over time. Yet most VQA bench...
arXiv:2606. 17389v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal Foundation Models are increasingly used as reasoning agents, making reliability, knowing when a model may hallucinate, critical.
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.
The paper evaluates Vision Language Models (VLMs) on Visual Question Answering tasks where questions violate Grice's maxims. By generating question modifiers that add non-essential, ambiguous, or false information, the authors show that VLMs such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Llava exhibit reduced performance. They also compare human pragmatic reasoning to VLM reasoning, noting differences in how each handles human‑induced versus AI‑generated violations, and find that humans spend less time resolving VLM‑induced violations while VLMs are less accurate in those cases.
The paper investigates how vision‑language models (VLMs) handle negation by comparing their attention patterns to human gaze when processing affirmative versus negated statements. Using synthetic and realistic datasets, the authors find that most VLMs do not mimic human-like attention and rely on mechanisms beyond attention, with PaliGemma2‑3B shifting focus to alternatives under negation and LLaVA‑1.5‑7B showing a left‑side spatial bias. The study highlights a performance gap between affirmative and negated queries across downstream tasks, underscoring the need for better negation processing in VLMs.
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...
The study evaluates whether signals from a frozen vision‑language model, InstructBLIP, can reliably indicate answerability in visual question answering. Using a 10K subset of UNK‑VQA, the authors test predictive uncertainty, cross‑modal alignment, visual grounding, visual dependence, internal representations, and learned probes, finding that all signals yield weak discrimination (AUROC 0.50‑0.54). Even interventions that remove question‑relevant visual evidence or increase probe capacity do not substantially improve answerability detection, underscoring that visual dependence and related metrics are not robust proxies for answerability.
The paper investigates how vision‑language models (VLMs) resolve conflicts between image features using a Stroop‑style benchmark. By prompting contrastive and generative VLMs on images where text and color disagree, the authors find a consistent bias toward textual cues, with models preferring to respond based on text rather than color. Analysis of the embedding space reveals that textual signals are represented more strongly and separably than color signals, explaining why steering models toward text is easier than toward color.