Seeing is not Enough: Vision-Language Models Perceive Evidence but Fail to Act

Abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) perform strongly on visual question answering benchmarks, yet often make decisions that contradict visual evidence they have already identified correctly. We distinguish perceptual failure, where relevant evidence is not recognized, from process failure, where recognized evidence fails to constrain the final decision. We introduce VPAC-Bench, a benchmark spanning nine real-image process families, with each image annotated by its current activity stage and nearby stage transition. We also propose State-Relevance-Target (SRT), a family of structured process-prior interventions that requires models to connect visible evidence to the relevant process state before answering. Across multiple VLMs, process failure is widespread: models that correctly enumerate visual candidates still over-commit to a single answer in more than 95% of ambiguous cases. An explicit process-structured intervention reduces this rate to below 13% without degrading performance on unambiguous cases. However, the transfer of process priors is model-dependent, and generic SRT does not consistently outperform strong chain-of-thought baselines. When the relevant stage transition is known, boundary-aligned SRT substantially outperforms generic process prompting and all tested chain-of-thought baselines across assembly, physical state transition, navigation and traffic, and object-use affordance tasks. These results show that process priors are most useful when aligned with the scene's specific decision boundary, motivating boundary-aware prior selection for process-grounded visual reasoning.