arXiv:2606. 13156v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Letting a vision-language model (VLM) think longer at test time has driven much recent progress.
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 AI.
arXiv:2606. 13156v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong singleshot spatial grounding, yet lack any mechanism to observe and correct their own predictions.
arXiv:2603. 06828v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We uncover a behavioral law of long-horizon vision-language models: models that maintain temporally grounded beliefs generalize better.
The paper investigates how Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) often report high confidence even after self‑correcting or arriving at wrong answers, a phenomenon the authors attribute to the verbalized confidence being largely independent of the model’s reasoning trajectory. By analyzing content variation, token masking, and hesitation markers, the authors demonstrate that confidence does not adequately reflect the actual reasoning process and that calibration training can sometimes worsen this disconnect. To address this blind spot, they introduce the Trajectory‑Grounding Score (TGS) in two forms—TGS‑self and TGS‑pair—and propose TGS‑Bench, a suite of 10 benchmarks that reveal divergences between conventional calibration metrics and trajectory‑grounded confidence.
arXiv:2606. 16122v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Visual thinking should not only sound right; it should show its evidence.
arXiv:2607. 23125v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training enables vision-language models (VLMs) to understand human instructions and perform various downstream tasks.
The paper introduces a framework that combines world models, which generate concrete visual rollouts of possible futures, with multimodal large language models (MLLMs) that perform abstract reasoning. It proposes a controlled concrete reasoning approach and a new training method called Privileged‑Future On‑Policy Self‑Distillation (PF‑OPSD), which uses ground‑truth future videos as privileged teacher context during training while the student model never sees true futures at test time. Experiments on two human‑verified benchmarks, VRQABench and OpenWorldQA, show that PF‑OPSD improves performance by about 10–11% over baselines and enhances robustness to noisy or conflicting rollouts.