arXiv:2609.39142v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can structured text replace vision for diagram reasoning? A wrong answer after textualization can arise because the representation omits information th...
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:2609.26093v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models can answer spatial relation questions confidently even when the image supports an incompatible relation. We formulate relation-g...
arXiv:2608. 13267v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks emphasize perception and reasoning accuracy (how well VLMs describe and reason about what they see in an image), with limited attention to behavioral reliability under uncertainty (how they behave when visual evidence is missing or misleading).
arXiv:2609.00232v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved strong performance on OCR-centric document understanding and text-rich visual reasoning benchmar...
arXiv:2609.22588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) perform strongly on visual question answering benchmarks, yet often make decisions that contradict visual evidence they h...
The paper introduces a free, label‑free visual evidence signal that improves fine‑grained vision‑language reasoning. By selecting image crops that maximize the model’s answer distribution peak, the method locates answer‑bearing regions without training or annotations, boosting accuracy from 70 % to 85 %. The evidence gap also complements model confidence, enabling better correctness prediction and error flagging.
arXiv:2604. 14888v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear.
arXiv:2609.38777v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A central goal of vision-language model (VLM) distillation is to transfer both the teacher's language capabilities and its visual understanding. Howeve...
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...
The paper introduces EviSpec, a training‑free compiler that generates complementary evidence specifications to improve high‑resolution multimodal large language models (MLLMs). By explicitly guiding visual search with structured evidence specifications, EviSpec achieves significant relative gains—up to 14.8% over random evidence—across five MLLMs and three benchmarks, and also sets new state‑of‑the‑art results on VQA and hallucination‑focused tasks.
Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on OCR-based benchmarks and increasingly focused on text-rich understanding, but their robustness under controlled visual degradation remains insufficiently understood. This gap is critical for OCR reasoning, where visual corruption can induce OCR errors and structural distortions, thereby introducing uncertainty into the reasoning task.