arXiv Machine Learning
The Visual Insensitivity Gap: Diagnosing When Vision-Language Models Fail to Use Visual Evidence
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Oct 2
VisionQ: VLM-as-a-Judge Taxonomy, Dataset and Benchmark for Qualitative Analysis in Computer Vision
VisionQ is a new benchmark for qualitative analysis in computer vision that evaluates vision‑language models (VLMs) on criterion‑conditioned visual discrimination. It is built from over 1,800 peer‑reviewed comparison figures in CVPR and ICCV papers, linking each image crop to author‑stated visual claims through 3,911 hand‑annotated data points. The benchmark includes a 51‑leaf taxonomy of visual criteria, a protocol that hides method identities and reports accuracy per criterion, and a DPO‑tuned Gemma‑4‑E4B judge that improves accuracy on a held‑out test set.
arXiv Computer Vision
Sep 10
Vision-language models know more about agriculture than they show and rubric-grounded verifications close the gap
arXiv:2609.09417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for agricultural classification, but zero-shot performance on disease, pest, damage, quality, and species id...
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12
OccludeBench: Can VLMs Find What's Missing?
OccludeBench is a manually curated benchmark that tests vision‑language models (VLMs) on their ability to recover fully occluded objects from remaining visual evidence. The benchmark distinguishes direct cases—requiring recovery from a specific physical cue such as a shadow or reflection—from inferential cases, which rely on broader scene context. Across five VLMs, accuracy averages 42.7 % on direct cases versus 62.7 % on inferential cases, a 20‑point gap, while humans achieve 63.4 % and 68.5 % respectively with no significant gap. The study introduces OccludeTrace, a four‑stage diagnostic that isolates the failure point, revealing that models struggle most when recovering the relevant object from the full image projection. Interventions such as inpaint‑then‑confront reduce the gap to a statistically non‑significant difference for models with image‑generation capabilities.
arXiv AI
Aug 17
Beyond aggregate scores: Deployment-aware and non-compensatory benchmarking of vision-based eye-state recognition models for driver monitoring
arXiv:2606. 08123v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Model selection for safety-relevant visual recognition is often based on clean aggregate performance, although robustness, transfer, embedded latency, and explanation faithfulness may produce different preferences.
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 5
From Patching to Pruning Visual Computation in Vision Language Models
arXiv:2610.03389v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision language models (VLMs) incur substantial inference cost because every visual token is processed by the attention and MLP projections of every...
arXiv AI
Oct 5
Corrupted but Correct: Why Vision-Language Models Lie to Themselves Internally
The paper demonstrates that a targeted adversarial perturbation can reduce a vision‑language model’s training loss to near zero for a fixed target caption, yet the same model, when generating freely, still produces the correct description. This phenomenon, termed the train/inference gap, is traced to a single autoregressive step where the target token’s rank is fixed across all images, and further analysis shows that the language decoder, rather than the visual encoder, determines whether the corrupted signal is amplified or suppressed. The study uses a controlled two‑stage PGD attack on Qwen2.5‑VL‑7B‑Instruct and evaluates the effect on 200 held‑out COCO images, revealing that adversarial robustness in autoregressive VLMs largely depends on the language decoder’s prior. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that defenses and faithfulness evaluations for deployed vision‑language models should focus on the language decoder rather than the visual encoder, as the former is the key determinant of robustness to adversarial perturbations."