arXiv Machine Learning By Rongyu Yu, Ke Niu, Fengxiang He

Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 19807v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

Uncertainty Is Not a Safety Net for Clinical VQA, but Can It Anticipate Model Failure?

The paper evaluates uncertainty estimation (UE) methods for clinical vision‑language models (VLMs) on visual question answering (VQA). Across 8 UE techniques and 12 VLMs, UE quality tracks model accuracy, degrading where performance is weakest, and fails to signal uncertainty when models are stressed by hiding the correct answer (NOTA perturbations). However, UE on unperturbed inputs reliably predicts which predictions will collapse under NOTA, suggesting UE can diagnose model fragility.

By Arnisa Fazla, Alberto Testoni, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Barbara Plank, Iacer Calixto
arXiv AI
Aug 14

How Do VLMs Behave When Blind or Misled? Behavioral Evaluation of VLMs on Scientific Figures

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).

By Paul Osemudiame Oamen, Owusu-Banahene Osei, Ananya Mukherjee, Christian Greisinger, Steffen Eger, Pius Onobhayedo, Wei Zhao
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Towards Reliable Vision-Language Models for Autonomous Driving

The paper evaluates five vision‑language models on autonomous driving tasks under various visual input conditions, finding that visual corruption affects accuracy and confidence differently across models and datasets. It then tests Visual Evidence Augmentation (VEA) as an inference‑time technique to enhance reliability, observing mixed improvements depending on the model and setting.

By Manasa Mariam Mammen, Priyanka Mary Mammen, Zafer Kayatas, Stefan Wagner
arXiv AI
Oct 7

When to Rethink: Learning Multi-Perspective Self-Verification for Vision-Language Models

The paper introduces MOTIVE, a multi-view self-verification framework for vision-language models that evaluates candidate answers from complementary perspectives and learns a reliability score aligned with correctness. By using this score to decide whether to accept an answer or trigger history-guided rethinking, MOTIVE improves reliability and efficiency compared to existing self-verification and self-correction methods. Extensive experiments on diverse multimodal benchmarks and VLM backbones show consistent performance gains and reduced unnecessary reasoning turns.

By Ziquan Zhu, Hanruo Zhu, Si-Yuan Lu, Morris Yu-Chao Huang, Yicheng Lin, Wei Han, Tianlong Chen, Mingyuan Wu, Hanchao Yu, Gaojie Jin, Lu Liu, Bo Sun, Tianjin Huang