The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computer Vision.
arXiv:2609.06419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language models (VLMs) require confidence that reflects both answer correctness and patient-specific visual evidence. Recent GRPO-base...
arXiv:2609. 31450v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language model (VLM) post-training is commonly evaluated through answer accuracy.
arXiv:2606. 20244v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often underperform on evidence intensive tasks because decisive visual evidence are small, localized, and easy to overlook, leading to failures in evidence readout even when high-level reasoning is intact.
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: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...
The study evaluates whether signals from a frozen vision‑language model, InstructBLIP, can reliably indicate answerability in visual question answering. Using a 10K subset of UNK‑VQA, the authors test predictive uncertainty, cross‑modal alignment, visual grounding, visual dependence, internal representations, and learned probes, finding that all signals yield weak discrimination (AUROC 0.50‑0.54). Even interventions that remove question‑relevant visual evidence or increase probe capacity do not substantially improve answerability detection, underscoring that visual dependence and related metrics are not robust proxies for answerability.