Explicit Logic Channel for Validation and Enhancement of MLLMs on Zero-Shot Tasks
Authors: Mei Chee Leong, Ying Gu, Hui Li Tan, Liyuan Li, Nancy Chen
Organizations: Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R) · Present address: Institute of Advanced Intelligence and Computing (IAIC), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore
Abstract
Frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities in Visual-Language Comprehension (VLC) tasks. However, they are often deployed as zero-shot solution to new tasks in a black-box manner. Validating and understanding the behavior of these models become important for application to new task. We propose an Explicit Logic Channel, in parallel with the black-box model channel, to perform explicit logical reasoning for model validation, selection and enhancement. The frontier MLLM, encapsulating latent vision-language knowledge, can be considered as an Implicit Logic Channel. The proposed Explicit Logic Channel, mimicking human logical reasoning, incorporates a LLM, a VFM, and logical reasoning with probabilistic inference for factual, counterfactual, and relational reasoning over the explicit visual evidence. A Consistency Rate (CR) is proposed for cross-channel validation and model selection, even without ground-truth annotations. Additionally, cross-channel integration further improves performance in zero-shot tasks over MLLMs, grounded with explicit visual evidence to enhance trustworthiness. Comprehensive experiments conducted for two representative VLC tasks, i.e., MC-VQA and HC-REC, on three challenging benchmarks, with 11 recent open-source MLLMs from 4 frontier families. Our systematic evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed ELC and CR for model validation, selection and improvement on MLLMs with enhanced explainability and trustworthiness.
Dominant accuracy evaluation might reward unwarranted guessing of Large Language Models, and it might not be applicable to novel tasks for model validation without ground-truth (gt) annotation. Based on basic logic principle, we propose a novel framework to evaluate the vision-language logical consistency of MLLMs on both sufficient and necessary cause-effect relations. We define Vision-Language Logical Consistency Metric (VL-LCM) on traditional MC-VQA tests, and recent NaturalBench tests without the need for gt annotation. Through systematic experiments on representative VL benchmark MMMU and recent VL challenges like NaturalBench, we evaluated 11 recent open-source MLLMs from 4 frontier families. Our findings reveal that, despite significant progress of recent MLLMs on accuracy, logical consistency lags behind significantly. Extensive evaluations on the correlations of VL-LCM with metrics on gt, the reliability of LCM, and the relation of VL-LCM with response distribution justify the validity and applicability of VL-LCM even without gt annotation. Our findings suggest that, beyond accuracy, logical consistency could be employed for both accuracy and reliability. VL-LCM can also be employed for MLLM selection, validation, and reliable answer justification in novel tasks without gt annotation.
Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) achieve strong performance on visual reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains unclear to what extent such performance reflects reasoning directly grounded in visual evidence. We introduce VisReason, a benchmark for vision-centric reasoning in everyday scenarios where perception and inference are tightly coupled. VisReason contains 1,505 questions across 10 categories spanning perceptual, structural, and conceptual reasoning. Our evaluation shows that VisReason poses a qualitatively different challenge from existing benchmarks, exposing substantial gaps between humans and current MLLMs and revealing limited benefits from test-time reasoning strategies. VisReason offers a focused diagnostic for evaluating vision-centric reasoning beyond language.
Reasoning in vision-language models (VLMs) has recently attracted significant attention due to its broad applicability across diverse downstream tasks. However, it remains unclear whether the superior performance of VLMs stems from genuine vision-grounded reasoning or relies predominantly on the reasoning capabilities of their textual backbones. To systematically measure this, we introduce CrossMath, a novel multimodal reasoning benchmark designed for controlled cross-modal comparisons. Specifically, we construct each problem in text-only, image-only, and image+text formats guaranteeing identical task-relevant information, verified by human annotators. This rigorous alignment effectively isolates modality-specific reasoning differences while eliminating confounding factors such as information mismatch. Extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a consistent phenomenon: a substantial performance gap between textual and visual reasoning. Notably, VLMs excel with text-only inputs, whereas incorporating visual data (image+text) frequently degrades performance compared to the text-only baseline. These findings indicate that current VLMs conduct reasoning primarily in the textual space, with limited genuine reliance on visual evidence. To mitigate this limitation, we curate a CrossMath training set for VLM fine-tuning. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that fine-tuning on this training set significantly boosts reasoning performance across all individual and joint modalities, while yielding robust gains on two general visual reasoning tasks. Source code is available at https://github.com/xuyige/CrossMath.