arXiv:2607. 02089v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance across diverse multimodal tasks, yet they remain vulnerable to unreliable reasoning.
arXiv:2608.29374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented multimodal reasoning integrates external tools (e.g., object detection, depth estimation) into multimodal large language models (MLLMs)...
The paper introduces an interventional protocol to assess how vision‑language models (VLMs) explain the impact of missing modalities on their predictions. By comparing the models’ self‑explanations with actual changes observed after restoring missing inputs, the study finds that VLMs routinely overstate the sufficiency of available evidence and underestimate the effect of adding back missing modalities. Across eight open‑weight VLMs and four tasks, the discrepancy between predicted and realized changes is substantial, revealing systematic mischaracterization of modality dependence.
arXiv:2507. 02778v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI, they still make errors and follow unproductive reasoning paths.
Self-improvement for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is typically driven by reward-based methods that provide only coarse scalar feedback. Distillation offers a richer alternative through dense token-level supervision, but in the visual domain it usually depends on privileged context constructed using external annotations and tools, or stronger models.
arXiv:2607. 23125v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training enables vision-language models (VLMs) to understand human instructions and perform various downstream tasks.
arXiv:2608.22857v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) frequently fail at visual change reasoning, even when their vision encoders contain sufficient information. We observe th...
arXiv:2607. 24354v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic prompt optimization (APO) has been widely adopted to adapt vision-language models (VLMs) to downstream tasks without weight updates, yielding promising results.
arXiv:2607. 18615v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine unlearning for vision-language models (VLMs) remains underexplored.
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.
arXiv:2609.36563v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Visual emotion recognition commonly assumes that all evidence required for prediction is contained in the observed image or video. Yet the same visible...
arXiv:2602. 08503v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Self-correction is essential for solving complex reasoning problems in vision-language models (VLMs).
arXiv:2606. 13156v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Letting a vision-language model (VLM) think longer at test time has driven much recent progress.