The paper introduces a controlled evaluation framework for interactive visual grounding in large vision-language models (LVLMs), examining how varying amounts of initial target information and dialogue affect performance. Experiments across four visual contexts and interaction protocols show that current LVLMs lag behind human baselines, especially when no initial description is given and information must be gathered through questions. The study also finds that LVLMs are poorly calibrated, often overestimating confidence, and that interactive grounding remains a significant challenge requiring visual matching, information seeking, and synthesis.
By Zhengxiang Wang, Owen Rambow
arXiv:2608. 19208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are frequently exposed to auxiliary textual context, the impact of which on visually grounded tasks remains underexplored.
By Yinfeng Wang, Zhiyuan Yao, Zheren Fu, Lei Zhang, Zhendong Mao
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.
By Monika Shah, Sudarshan Balaji, Somdeb Sarkhel, Sanorita Dey, Deepak Venugopal
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.
By Daniel Ben-Levi, Judah Goldfeder, Weiliang Zhao, Raz Lapid, Amit LeVi, Allen G. Roush, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Hod Lipson
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...
By L. D. M. S. Sai Teja, Ufaq Khan, N. Siva Gopala Krishna, Satyajit Tourani, Ashshak Sharifdeen, Fida Mohammad Thoker, Bernard Ghanem, Muhammad Haris Khan
The study investigates whether attention weights in Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) accurately reflect model reasoning for visual inputs. Using causal perturbation analysis, it identifies three distinct processing modes—Faithful‑Sufficient, Faithful‑Distributed, and Non‑Focal—indicating heterogeneous visual attention faithfulness. The research also shows that human‑annotated ground‑truth regions align with model attention in only about 60% of cases, highlighting a systematic divergence between model visual reliance and human intuition across VQA, document, and chart tasks.
By Xurui Song, Weishi Wang, Zhongqi Yue, Kuluhan Binici, Tao Bai, Hongxin Shao, Daniel Dahlmeier, Jun Luo
arXiv:2609.00293v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We investigate how vision-language models (VLMs) handle context-memory conflicts; that is, situations in which the model is given information in contex...
By Athulith Paraselli, Etha Tianze Hua, Ellie Pavlick
arXiv:2606. 06890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently rely on language priors, producing confident answers that are weakly grounded in visual evidence.
By Runyu Zhou, Qi Zhang, Qixun Wang, Yisen Wang
The study examines how Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) integrate visual evidence into language‑based decisions by applying layer‑wise causal interventions on video‑text attention pathways in a video‑based generative multiple‑choice setting. Findings reveal that visual information is primarily incorporated while processing candidate answer options, with nouns serving as key semantic anchors and verbs becoming important during temporal reasoning. The research also uncovers a distinct pattern in temporal reasoning, indicating that VLMs struggle to reconstruct sequential information across video frames, possibly due to linguistic biases in temporal expressions.
By Davide Testa, Hugh Mee Wong, Alessandro Lenci, Bernardo Magnini, Albert Gatt
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...
By Yuyang Dai, Bofei Huang, Hongbo Zhang, Haoran Xie
arXiv:2610.08401v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: While recent vision-language models (VLMs) have shown outstanding performance across diverse applications, they tend to under-use visual information...
By Seulgi Kim, Zhixiong Zhang, Xinwei Zhang, Jie Ling, Ronn Shaw
arXiv:2606. 31719v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In collaborative dialogue, shared perception does not guarantee shared interpretation.
By Nan Li, Albert Gatt, Massimo Poesio