The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Vision-language models must reconcile conflicting text and images. Prior work has characterized the resulting behavior in terms of modality biases--e.g., a "blind faith in text"--but why preferences v...
arXiv:2604. 14888v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear.
The paper introduces visual adaptations of counterfactual tests—vCT and vCCT—to evaluate whether chain-of-thought explanations in vision‑language models faithfully reflect the visual evidence driving predictions. Using these tests, the authors benchmark eight open‑source VLMs on two datasets and find that CoTs often fail to track visual evidence, sometimes omitting removed objects or mentioning them inconsistently. They also release two new datasets, Counter‑SNLI‑VE and Counter‑A‑OKVQA, consisting of image pairs that differ by a single object to facilitate further research.
arXiv:2609.26986v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: For multimodal large language models, when images or speech conflict with accompanying text, measured text reliance can entangle modality preference wi...
arXiv:2607. 03365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly read news and web content as images, where the publisher's identity is visually present.
arXiv:2602.06652v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions r...