arXiv:2609.13308v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: A companion evaluation found that naming the target part in a manipulation prompt increased action accuracy by 0.32-0.63 across eight vision-language...
By Sarthak Sattigeri
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...
By Feixiang Liu, Qiang Qiu, Qingyang Li, Hui Xu
arXiv:2606. 03885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Feature attribution methods explain predictions by assigning importance scores to input features.
By Kieran A. Murphy, Shameen Shrestha
arXiv:2608. 05670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A model's agreement across perturbed inputs is used both as a label-free reliability signal and as a self-training target, on the premise that agreement tracks correctness.
By Rasul Khanbayov, Hasan Kurban
arXiv:2609.36572v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has been extended to Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), and perception-aware methods further e...
By Zhongan Bi, Kepeng Lin, Xuanang Gao, Yuhan Sun, Lianrun Zhang
The paper introduces AgentDiff, a metric that quantifies how much LLM agents’ answers differ when inputs are altered by meaning‑bearing rewrites (paraphrases, synonym substitutions) versus presentation changes (reordering, formatting, distractors). Across 68 model–benchmark–scaffold combinations involving ten LLMs and over 1,500 questions, meaning‑bearing rewrites consistently produce a roughly 20‑percentage‑point higher inconsistency rate than presentation changes, a gap that persists across severity proxies and remains significant even outside the Qwen family. Trace analysis reveals that meaning‑bearing rewrites preserve the first action but reduce thought similarity from the second step onward, extending the divergence cascade—a phenomenon termed “stealth divergence.”
By Liyun Zhang, Jiayi Guo