arXiv AI

Give the Model a Finger: Developmentally Aligned Evaluation of Counting in Vision-Language Models

arXiv AI
6d ago

CounterCount: Diagnosing Knowledge Bias in How Vision-Language Models Count Attributes

CounterCount is a diagnostic dataset that pairs factual and counterfactual images to test whether Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) rely on visual evidence or on world knowledge when counting attributes. Humans achieve near‑perfect accuracy on both types of images, whereas VLMs drop from 91.6% to 49.5% on counterfactuals, often defaulting to canonical counts. The study shows that VLMs exhibit a System‑1‑like bias, underutilize visual evidence, and that targeted input manipulations can mitigate this bias.

By Reem Alzahrani, Bushra Bin Hemid, Hassan Alshanqiti, Zaid Alyafeai, Paul Gavrikov, Bernard Ghanem, Abdelrahman Eldesokey
arXiv AI
Jul 15

Visual Access Boundaries in Vision-Language Model Reasoning

arXiv:2607. 12815v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a test-time scaling strategy for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it remains unclear what is extended when VLMs generate longer reasoning traces.

By Hiroto Osaka, Shohei Taniguchi, Gouki Minegishi, Kai Yamashita, Masahiro Suzuki, Yutaka Matsuo
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 14

Visual Access Boundaries in Vision-Language Model Reasoning

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a test-time scaling strategy for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it remains unclear what is extended when VLMs generate longer reasoning traces. We ask whether CoT requires continued access to image tokens, or whether it mainly operates over visual information already made available earlier in the forward pass.

arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 12

In-Context Learning Can Help Vision-Language Models Overcome Training Priors

The paper shows that controlled visual in‑context learning can help vision‑language models (VLMs) overcome errors caused by training priors. By providing demonstrations, the models focus more on visual evidence, yielding significant accuracy gains on counterfactual examples while leaving prior‑aligned performance largely unchanged. This effect is observed across five VLM families and five vision‑centric tasks, indicating that many VLMs possess latent visual grounding abilities that standard tests may miss.

By Kun Wang, Xindi Wu, Sanghyuk Chun, Olga Russakovsky, Esin Tureci
arXiv AI
Aug 10

Probing Visual Concepts in Lightweight Vision-Language Models for Automated Driving

arXiv:2603. 06054v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The use of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in automated driving applications is becoming increasingly common, with the aim of leveraging their reasoning and generalisation capabilities to handle long-tail scenarios.

By Nikos Theodoridis, Reenu Mohandas, Ganesh Sistu, Anthony Scanlan, Ciar\'an Eising, Tim Brophy
arXiv AI
Aug 20

ReWEIGH the Evidence: Calibrating Token-Level Ordinal Visual Evidence to Mitigate Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models

ReWEIGH the Evidence is a training‑free decoding technique that calibrates token‑level ordinal visual evidence to reduce hallucinations in large vision‑language models. It aggregates vocabulary ranks across visual positions, compares candidates to a token‑specific reference derived from unlabeled images, and applies a bounded penalty only when evidence falls below this reference. Experiments on four 7B backbones show up to a 21.3% reduction in hallucinated object mentions while largely preserving or improving descriptive and general performance, with minimal added latency.

By Jihae Jeong, Junha Choi, Hwanjo Yu
arXiv Computer Vision
Oct 12

Auditing VLM Benchmarks from Existing Evaluation Runs

The paper introduces an audit layer for vision‑language model benchmarks that reuses per‑question artifacts from evaluation runs to assess the benchmark itself. Six detectors analyze saved outputs, and an additional text‑only rerun removes visual inputs to produce per‑question reports and aggregate statistics, including permutation‑null excess and interval estimates. Applying this method to the MMStar benchmark reveals that 20.2% of its questions show no accuracy gain from images, with a small but significant excess in mathematics and science categories, and identifies questions where all models chose the same non‑gold option.

By Denis Degtiarev, Anna Gromova, Sergey Katkov, Artem Mikhailin, Safina Mukhamedshina, Albert Nasybullin, Karina Shaikhutdinova, Artem Tuzov