Decomposing Visual Classification: Assessing Tree-Based Reasoning in VLMs

Decision trees can make vision-language model (VLM) classification interpretable by replacing a single prediction with a sequence of root-to-leaf questions. However, the accuracy cost of this greedy, non-backtracking procedure remains unclear. We introduce MYOPIA, a benchmark comprising four LLM-generated, human-refined decision trees for GTSRB, MNIST, CIFAR-10, and MSCOCO, together with matched prompts, diagnostic protocols, and an evaluation harness. Across GPT-4o, Qwen-VL Max, and LLaMA-3.2 11B Vision, tree traversal underperforms zero-shot prompting in all 12 dataset--model pairs; paired bootstrap analyses consistently favor zero-shot. Our diagnostics characterize interacting failure modes associated with this gap. Models often recall tree-encoded class attributes more accurately than they ground the same attributes in images: the mean label--image accuracy gaps are 9.5, 13.8, and 12.6 points for GPT-4o, Qwen-VL Max, and LLaMA, respectively. Incorrect local decisions then irreversibly exclude the correct class, while answer extraction introduces additional model-dependent loss. A node-level audit of the four trees finds that split entropy is weakly but consistently associated with lower node accuracy, whereas depth, branching factor, and within-node grounding differences are less stable. MYOPIA therefore provides a framework for diagnosing hierarchical visual classification and motivates testing tree designs that prioritize perceptual answerability and recovery from early errors. Code is available at https://github.com/islammesabah/VLM_Classification.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have made substantial progress across a wide range of visual question answering benchmarks, spanning visual reasoning, document understanding, and multimodal dialogue. These improvements are evident in a wide range of VLMs built on a variety of base models, alignment architectures, and training data. However, recent works show that these models trail behind in traditional image classification benchmarks, which test fine-grained visual knowledge. We test a large number of recent VLMs on fine-grained classification benchmarks and identify potential factors in the disconnect between fine-grained knowledge and other vision benchmarks. Through a series of ablation experiments, we find that using a better LLM improves all benchmark scores equally, while a better vision encoder disproportionately improves fine-grained classification performance. Furthermore, we find that the pretraining stage is also vital to fine-grained performance, particularly when the language model weights are unfrozen during pretraining. These insights pave the way for enhancing fine-grained visual understanding and vision-centric capabilities in VLMs.

Current Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) excel at many zero-shot tasks like image captioning, visual question answering and OCR. However, these same models suffer from poor performance at image classification tasks, underperforming against CLIP-based methods. Notably, this gap is surprising because many LVLMs use CLIP-pretrained vision encoders. Yet LVLMs are not inherently limited by CLIP's architecture with independent vision and text encoders. In CLIP, this separation biases classification toward class-name matching rather than joint visual-text reasoning. In this paper we show that, despite their poor raw performance, LVLMs can improve visual feature class separability at inference using prompt conditioning, and LVLMs' internal representations, especially attention heads, can outperform the model itself at zero-shot and few-shot classification. We introduce Head Ensemble Classifiers (HEC) to bridge the performance gap between CLIP-based and LVLM-based classification methods. Inspired by Gaussian Discriminant Analysis, HEC ranks the most discriminative vision and text heads and combines them into a training-free classifier. We show that HEC achieves state-of-the-art performance in few-shot and zero-shot classification across 12 datasets.