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.
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.
Yu-Yang Dai, Bo-Fei Huang, Hong-Bo Zhang et al.· 1 citation
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...
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.
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
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
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...