To Trust Or Not To Trust Your Vision-Language Model's Prediction
Authors: Hao Dong, Moru Liu, Jian Liang, Eleni Chatzi, Olga Fink
Organizations: ETH Zürich · Technical University of Munich · NLPR & MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · EPFL
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in aligning visual and textual modalities, enabling a wide range of applications in multimodal understanding and generation. While they excel in zero-shot and transfer learning scenarios, VLMs remain susceptible to misclassification, often yielding confident yet incorrect predictions. This limitation poses a significant risk in safety-critical domains, where erroneous predictions can lead to severe consequences. In this work, we introduce TrustVLM, a training-free framework designed to address the critical challenge of estimating when VLM's predictions can be trusted. Motivated by the observed modality gap in VLMs and the insight that certain concepts are more distinctly represented in the image embedding space, we propose a novel confidence-scoring function that leverages this space to improve misclassification detection. We rigorously evaluate our approach across 17 diverse datasets, employing 4 architectures and 2 VLMs, and demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, with improvements of up to 51.87% in AURC, 9.14% in AUROC, and 32.42% in FPR95 compared to existing baselines. By improving the reliability of the model without requiring retraining, TrustVLM paves the way for safer deployment of VLMs in real-world applications. The code is available at https://github.com/EPFL-IMOS/TrustVLM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) CLIP’s image and text embeddings are located in two completely separate regions of the embedding space. (b) The concept of "dog" and "seaplane" is more distinguishable in the image embedding space than in the text embedding space.
Figure 2: The proposed TrustVLM framework comprises three main steps. Initially, visual prototypes for each class are generated and stored using a pre-trained vision encoder. Subsequently, the VLMs perform zero-shot classification and yield an image-to-text similarity score, Si−t . In the third step, the initial prediction is verified using image-to-image similarity, providing an additional confidence score, Si−i . Finally, these two scores are combined to determine the overall prediction confidence.
Flower102
DTD
Aircraft
Pets
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
MaxLogit
167.14
74.92
81.61
67.36
395.13
69.63
85.23
44.39
731.25
55.73
93.77
23.85
48.75
75.37
68.59
88.23
Energy
194.67
69.00
91.93
67.36
433.25
64.82
90.01
44.39
780.11
45.48
97.71
23.85
56.23
71.90
70.67
88.23
Entropy
117.27
84.88
63.48
67.36
319.02
79.03
77.05
44.39
575.71
73.12
83.96
23.85
21.91
89.31
53.35
88.23
MCM
153.63
78.22
71.02
67.36
333.43
78.16
78.45
44.39
583.28
72.58
81.65
23.85
44.95
77.03
64.90
88.23
DOCTOR
112.82
85.82
62.48
67.36
314.37
79.66
76.51
44.39
575.53
73.05
83.84
23.85
21.08
89.92
55.20
88.23
Table 1: Misclassification detection performance on fine-grained classification datasets with CLIP ViT-B/16, where -C, -M, and -D are with CLIP-I, MoCo v2, and DINOv2 as auxiliary vision encoders. AURC is multiplied by 103 following previous work Zhu et al. (2023) .
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-V2
ImageNet-R
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
MaxLogit
387.23
64.16
86.59
50.08
254.37
68.58
85.22
61.20
138.25
72.98
79.48
74.19
Energy
421.78
59.15
90.00
50.08
278.89
64.64
89.26
61.20
160.84
67.39
86.55
74.19
Entropy
298.23
75.46
77.47
50.08
189.58
77.57
79.90
61.20
79.64
85.80
63.13
74.19
MCM
341.67
71.99
78.27
50.08
236.32
71.62
80.38
61.20
109.67
80.49
64.73
74.19
DOCTOR
290.78
76.67
76.93
50.08
181.67
79.32
73.67
61.20
75.33
87.14
60.81
74.19
Table 2: Misclassification detection performance on ImageNet and its variants with CLIP ViT-B/16.
Figure 3: MisD performance on ImageNet and its variants using CLIP ViT-B/16, under distribution shifts defined by prototypes computed exclusively on ImageNet and deployed directly to variant datasets.
CIFAR-10
CIFAR-100
EuroSAT
Average
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
ResNet-101
MSP
85.98
62.98
78.01
80.72
73.40
48.50
61.73
88.98
30.30
76.14
75.12
52.27
ORCA
85.93
62.68
80.60
80.46
72.38
53.11
69.01
86.43
34.76
78.47
73.83
56.16
TrustVLM-D
94.76
26.82
78.01
90.03
39.46
48.50
74.03
66.69
30.30
86.27
44.32
52.27
TrustVLM*-D
90.97
41.88
95.63
82.27
65.52
79.35
72.08
72.15
81.78
81.77
59.85
85.59
ViT-B/32
MSP
88.92
58.66
88.92
81.15
71.09
58.42
76.42
80.24
41.11
82.16
70.00
62.82
Table 3: MisD performance compared with ORCA with CLIP ResNet-101 and ViT-B/32.
Method
Aircraft
Caltech101
Cars
DTD
EuroSAT
Flower102
Food101
Pets
SUN397
UCF101
Average
CLIP-RN50
15.54
85.88
55.74
40.37
23.70
61.75
73.95
83.65
58.81
58.74
55.81
CoOp Zhou et al. (2022)
22.20
87.70
61.30
52.20
63.20
81.00
76.30
86.20
63.40
67.00
66.05
Tip-Adapter Zhang et al. (2022)
23.70
88.80
63.90
54.70
72.50
83.20
76.70
86.40
66.70
72.10
68.87
CuPL Pratt et al. (2023)
19.59
89.29
57.28
48.64
38.38
65.44
76.94
84.84
62.55
58.97
60.19
TPT Shu et al. (2022)
17.58
87.02
58.46
40.84
28.33
62.69
74.88
84.49
61.46
60.82
57.66
DMN Zhang et al. (2024)
20.22
89.09
58.36
50.53
44.94
68.33
74.69
86.29
63.70
64.02
62.02
Table 4: Zero-shot classification results on fine-grained datasets with CLIP ResNet-50.
Figure 4: Influence of N in prototypes.
Figure 5: Score distribution for correct and wrong predictions. Our TrustVLM achieves better separation between the score distributions of correct and wrong predictions, leading to improved performance in misclassification detection.
Figure 6: Illustration of TrustVLM’s mechanism. Initially, the incorrect prediction receives a higher confidence score Si−t than the correct one, indicating overconfidence. By performing verification in the image embedding space using Si−i , this overconfidence is mitigated. As a result, the final confidence score κ(x) is significantly higher for the correct prediction than for the incorrect one.
Prompt
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
A photo of a [class]
77.30
95.05
30.06
A figure of a [class]
73.96
95.30
26.08
An image of a [class]
70.32
95.55
24.90
Table 7: Influence of different text prompts (TrustVLM-D on Flowers102 with N=16).
Prompt
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
A photo of a [class]
562.02
75.62
83.21
A figure of a [class]
576.58
77.08
77.34
An image of a [class]
566.30
77.41
80.70
Table 8: Influence of different text prompts (TrustVLM-D on Aircraft with N=16).
Prompt
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
A photo of a [class]
11.11
90.51
47.27
A figure of a [class]
9.42
92.71
42.39
An image of a [class]
7.39
93.36
41.10
Table 9: Influence of different text prompts (TrustVLM-D on Caltech101 with N=16).
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
MSP
76.73
76.65
84.35
TrustVLM-D
70.18
79.80
76.57
Table 10: Robustness to spurious correlation on Waterbirds dataset.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Representative examples from each dataset used in this work.
Figure 8: More illustration on TrustVLM’s mechanism.
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
Set 1
82.40
93.53
38.39
Set 2
80.83
94.02
33.91
Set 3
80.96
93.97
34.66
Appendix
Table 11: Robustness to the selection of N-shot samples (TrustVLM-D on Flowers102 with N=1).
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
Set 1
78.15
94.80
29.69
Set 2
78.47
94.74
29.07
Set 3
78.18
94.81
29.81
Appendix
Table 12: Robustness to the selection of N-shot samples (TrustVLM-D on Flowers102 with N=4).
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
Tip-Adapter
120.65
82.92
65.76
72.06
TrustVLM*-D
112.00
84.31
59.09
76.33
Appendix
Table 13: Compare with Tip-Adapter.
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-V2
ImageNet-R
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
DOCTOR
316.50
75.98
77.76
47.85
180.06
80.09
73.38
60.88
76.39
87.12
60.54
73.98
MSP
315.99
76.07
77.76
47.85
178.82
80.45
71.26
60.88
75.47
87.46
59.43
73.98
TrustVLM-D
324.07
75.87
77.20
47.85
174.23
82.18
64.82
60.88
74.94
87.69
58.09
73.98
ImageNet-Sketch
ImageNet
Average
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
Appendix
Table 14: MisD performance on ImageNet and its variants using CLIP ViT-B/16, under distribution shifts defined by prototypes computed exclusively on ImageNet and deployed directly to variant datasets.
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
MSP
188.75
82.20
70.10
TrustVLM-C
177.25± 0.19
84.76± 0.07
62.98± 0.41
TrustVLM-M
179.16± 0.21
84.38± 0.08
63.16± 0.46
TrustVLM-D
168.11± 0.15
86.95± 0.05
54.22± 0.35
Appendix
Table 15: Mean ± std over three random prototype draws, averaged over 10 fine-grained datasets with CLIP ViT-B/16. MSP does not depend on the draw.
Flower102
DTD
Aircraft
Pets
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
DOCTOR
26.03
93.13
38.75
83.76
183.86
79.14
72.67
61.29
513.33
78.08
80.74
27.42
7.65
95.55
30.65
91.55
MSP
25.14
93.63
34.75
83.76
181.52
79.66
72.52
61.29
514.42
77.78
76.98
27.42
7.65
95.54
28.71
91.55
TrustVLM-D
16.62
98.42
9.50
83.76
144.44
87.64
49.01
61.29
503.98
79.56
75.83
27.42
7.66
95.58
28.71
91.55
TrustVLM*-D
0.13
97.82
15.38
99.47
98.27
82.72
71.92
72.64
496.11
78.79
79.14
28.23
7.55
95.56
29.97
91.63
Caltech101
Cars
EuroSAT
UCF101
Appendix
Table 16: Misclassification detection performance on fine-grained classification datasets with SigLIP ViT-B/16.
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-V2
ImageNet-R
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
DOCTOR
299.17
79.28
72.72
47.62
124.64
83.03
67.64
67.55
21.40
91.53
45.00
87.82
MSP
299.17
79.25
72.58
47.62
124.12
83.21
67.08
67.55
20.92
91.90
43.06
87.82
TrustVLM-D
278.77
82.13
65.09
47.62
123.39
83.76
65.28
67.55
19.55
92.07
42.05
87.82
TrustVLM*-D
266.12
77.68
78.19
51.82
122.70
83.05
67.17
68.17
19.49
91.85
43.33
87.98
ImageNet-Sketch
ImageNet
Average
Appendix
Table 17: Misclassification detection performance on ImageNet and its variants with SigLIP ViT-B/16.
Flower102
DTD
Aircraft
Pets
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
DOCTOR
154.49
83.85
67.94
61.75
374.42
75.61
83.55
40.37
695.10
74.86
79.37
15.54
36.51
87.78
62.33
83.65
MSP
154.02
83.99
69.57
61.75
374.63
75.58
83.85
40.37
693.70
75.15
80.97
15.54
35.63
88.30
59.83
83.65
TrustVLM-D
106.43
94.74
27.07
61.75
309.72
87.72
47.87
40.37
675.03
79.38
79.37
15.54
35.02
88.62
58.00
83.65
TrustVLM*-D
0.23
98.10
4.55
99.11
130.86
77.64
75.46
71.34
622.50
75.35
79.68
20.25
34.37
88.95
57.67
83.65
Caltech101
Cars
EuroSAT
UCF101
Appendix
Table 18: Misclassification detection performance on fine-grained classification datasets with CLIP ResNet-50.
ImageNet-A
ImageNet-V2
ImageNet-R
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
ACC ↑
DOCTOR
672.36
66.71
86.78
22.79
256.91
79.22
75.41
51.50
188.11
84.28
68.02
56.36
MSP
673.06
66.68
86.39
22.79
255.65
79.53
74.83
51.50
187.18
84.51
66.21
56.36
TrustVLM-D
629.41
72.99
75.33
22.79
242.91
82.75
62.07
51.50
172.53
87.58
56.44
56.36
TrustVLM*-D
583.73
67.67
85.08
27.99
231.81
77.67
75.42
56.13
166.54
83.35
71.47
60.34
ImageNet-Sketch
ImageNet
Average
Appendix
Table 19: Misclassification detection performance on ImageNet and its variants with CLIP ResNet-50.
MSP
TrustVLM-D
ratio where Si−i > Si−t
Flower102
85.91
95.05
0.97
DTD
79.81
88.55
0.83
Aircraft
72.62
75.62
0.63
Pets
89.94
90.05
0.70
Caltech101
86.99
90.51
0.98
Cars
81.95
82.05
0.42
Appendix
Table 20: For each image, we randomly sampled one positive example (same class) and one negative example (different class), and computed both Si−i and Si−t . We then measured the proportion of cases where the Si−i exceeds Si−t . This ratio directly quantifies the relative discriminative strength of the visual features compared to the text-aligned semantic features. The AUROC is reported.
Weight
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
0.2
100.53
88.68
54.41
1.0
77.30
95.05
30.06
2.0
67.19
97.96
12.55
Appendix
Table 21: Influence of different weights on the confidence-scoring function (TrustVLM-D on Flowers102 with N=16).
Weight
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
0.2
135.21
82.26
71.92
1.0
137.54
82.05
70.62
2.0
148.86
79.82
72.76
Appendix
Table 22: Influence of different weights on the confidence-scoring function (TrustVLM-D on Cars with N=16).
Rule
Formula
AURC ↓
AUROC ↑
FPR95 ↓
Sum of probabilities (Eq. 4, ours)
p1+p2
112.00
84.31
59.09
Sum of logits, then softmax
softmax(z1+z2)
159.62
83.12
62.68
Appendix
Table 23: Ablation of the score-combination rule in Eq. (4) for TrustVLM ∗ -D.
A calibrated Vision-Language Model (VLM) can repeatedly self-correct, say "Wait, I should recheck," arrive at the wrong answer, and still report high confidence. We find that this occurs because verbalized confidence is largely trajectory-independent in the VLMs and calibration methods we evaluate. We examine this through three complementary lenses: content variation, token masking, and the model's own hesitation markers. We show that confidence is insufficiently sensitive to what the reasoning trajectory actually contains, and that calibration training can paradoxically worsen this disconnect. Since existing metrics like ECE and AUROC cannot detect this problem, we propose the Trajectory-Grounding Score (TGS) in two complementary forms: TGS-self, which compares confidence with and without access to the model's own trajectory, and TGS-pair, which tests whether the model assigns higher confidence to correct trajectories than to flawed ones along the vision, reasoning, and answer axes. We propose TGS-Bench, a model-agnostic suite spanning 10 benchmarks with controlled good/bad trajectory pairs, and show that conventional calibration rankings diverge from trajectory-grounding rankings, exposing a blind spot in current evaluation practice.
Jisoo Yang, Jaeho Han, Trung X. Pham +1
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University, Republic of Korea · Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Efficient transfer learning of vision-language models (VLMs) commonly suffers from a Base-New Trade-off (BNT): improving performance on unseen (new) classes often degrades accuracy on known (base) classes. Addressing how to boost recognition of unseen classes without sacrificing known-class performance remains a central challenge. Existing work often simplistically attributes the BNT to overfitting on known classes. We observe an interesting phenomenon: VLMs frequently exhibit asymmetric confusion on certain downstream data, i.e., samples of class A are systematically mispredicted as class B, while the reverse confusion (B to A) rarely occurs. For known classes, this kind of bias can be mitigated by tuning using a cross-entropy loss, but for unseen classes, such pretraining-induced bias persists and harms generalization. Motivated by this, we propose NeRP, a plug-and-play prompting correction strategy that improves discrimination on unseen classes without modifying model parameters. NeRP leverages neutral text prompts and reference images to measure class-wise prior preferences along the pre-trained inter-class geometry, and combines them with the sample likelihood to obtain the model's surrogate score. If, for a given sample, the prior strongly favors the current prediction while the observed evidence is clearly insufficient, we perform a local flip between easily confusable class pairs, thereby correcting prior-dominated mispredictions. Extensive experiments across multiple backbones and 15 few-shot and cross-domain benchmarks show that NeRP substantially improves accuracy on unseen classes while preserving known-class prediction performance.
Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) achieve strong multimodal reasoning but frequently exhibit hallucinations and incorrect responses with high certainty, which hinders their usage in high-stakes domains. Existing verbalized confidence calibration methods, largely developed for text-only LLMs, typically optimize a single holistic confidence score using binary answer-level correctness. This design is mismatched to LVLMs: an incorrect prediction may arise from perceptual failures or from reasoning errors given correct perception, and a single confidence conflates these sources while visual uncertainty is often dominated by language priors. To address these issues, we propose VL-Calibration, a reinforcement learning framework that explicitly decouples confidence into visual and reasoning confidence. To supervise visual confidence without ground-truth perception labels, we introduce an intrinsic visual certainty estimation that combines (i) visual grounding measured by KL-divergence under image perturbations and (ii) internal certainty measured by token entropy. We further propose token-level advantage reweighting to focus optimization on tokens based on visual certainty, suppressing ungrounded hallucinations while preserving valid perception. Experiments on thirteen benchmarks show that VL-Calibration effectively improves calibration while boosting visual reasoning accuracy, and it generalizes to out-of-distribution benchmarks across model scales and architectures.