Skip to content
Preprint

Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 16 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The results show that intervention-based diagnostics help identify stable-but-wrong and prior-tracking predictions that repeated agreement alone may miss, and a post-hoc, model-agnostic framework for accepting or rejecting individual VLM predictions is proposed, called Answer-Level Trust Selection (ATS).

Abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth. In deployment, a key question is whether an individual prediction can be trusted when its ground truth is unavailable. Self-consistency alone may fail to capture important failure modes: a VLM may produce stable-but-wrong estimates or rely on textual priors rather than visual evidence. We formulate answer-level selective prediction for quantitative physical reasoning and propose Answer-Level Trust Selection (ATS), a post-hoc, model-agnostic framework for accepting or rejecting individual VLM predictions. ATS requires no fine-tuning, auxiliary verifier, or access to the model's internal logits. Instead, it aggregates eight interpretable behavioral diagnostic scores derived from repeated queries and controlled interventions into a unified trust score. We evaluate ATS in depth on Qwen2.5-VL-7B and across 20 VLM backbones, examining selective performance, diagnostic behavior, and targeted failure modes. Our results show that intervention-based diagnostics help identify stable-but-wrong and prior-tracking predictions that repeated agreement alone may miss. However, improved failure-case rejection can come at the cost of lower retention of correct predictions. ATS therefore complements model-level capability evaluation with answer-level reliability assessment for quantitative VLM predictions. Code will be released upon publication.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Sep 2026

CCRV-Bench: Constraint-Based Evaluation of Causal Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated excellent performance in visual tasks, but their visual causal reasoning capabilities still lack reliable evaluation. Existing evaluations struggle to distinguish whether a model is performing causal reasoning based on visual evidence or relying on statistical correlation...

Lin-Yuan Gao, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?

This work conducts a controlled human study of six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, supported by a web-based framework that randomizes task domains, problem instances, and representation order.

Jaewoo Lim, Sungbok Shin, San Hong · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

FLIP: Final Layer Inference-Time Probing for Vision-Language Models

FLIP is a validation step for intervention-based mechanistic interpretability, not a steering method, for testing whether a logit-facing intervention site in an open-weight vision-language model (VLM) supports structured, task-linked computation rather than generic perturbation.

Drandreb Earl O. Juanico, Rowel O. Atienza · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

TRAPSBench: Vision-Language Models Encode but Fail to Express Epistemic Restraint

This paper shows that Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can internally distinguish when abstention is required, but fail to express it anyway, and introduces Penalized Epistemic Calibration Score (PECS), a new robust metric that requires models to both answer correctly when the outcome is knowable, and abstain when the out...

Fnu Pramono, J. Cai, Sourabh Kulkarni · 5 citations · ⚡1
Preprint Aug 2026

MG-VQA: Manipulation Grounded Visual Question Answering with VLMs

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown promising spatial reasoning capabilities from static visual inputs, where the evidence needed to answer a question is available in the provided views. However, in cluttered environments, answer-relevant evidence may be occluded rather than absent: an object may lie beneath a pil...

Vineet Bhat, Mikaela Angelina Uy, Si-Yi Chen et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.