Hidden Clones: Exposing and Fixing Family Bias in Vision-Language Model Ensembles
Organizations: Astera Institute
Abstract
Ensembling Vision-Language Models (VLMs) from different providers maximizes benchmark accuracy, yet models from the same architectural family share correlated errors that standard voting ignores. We study this structure across 17 VLMs from 8 families on VQAv2, TextVQA, and GQA. Family-correlated errors reduce effective ensemble dimensionality to 2.5-3.6 independent voters and create a Misleading tier (1.5-6.5% of questions) where correlated majority errors destroy accuracy to 0% despite the best model being correct. We propose three family-aware methods. Hierarchical Family Voting (HFV) aggregates within families before voting across them, recovering +18-26 pp on the Misleading tier. QualRCCV, a training-free method weighting models by calibration, family quality, and inverse family size, is the first to beat calibrated voting on all three benchmarks (p<0.05). Learned Candidate Scoring (LCS) trains a cross-validated classifier to re-rank candidate answers using support breadth, family diversity, and model quality, achieving the largest gains: +0.68% VQAv2, +0.61% TextVQA, +2.45% GQA -- all significant -- and is the only learned method that never degrades any benchmark. On VQAv2 test-standard (EvalAI), LCS reaches 87.83% with 12 models, confirming generalization.
Figures & tables
| Model | Family | Size | VQAv2 | TextVQA | GQA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| molmo2raw | Molmo | 8B | 86.3 | 77.9 | 59.0 |
| molmo2 | Molmo | 8B | 85.0 | 77.9 | 59.0 |
| fullft | Qwen2.5 | 7B | 84.8 | 67.2 | 60.6 |
| 7b_lora | Qwen2.5 | 7B | 83.6 | 82.9 | 61.2 |
| 7b_lora_full | Qwen2.5 | 7B | 83.6 | 82.4 | 61.3 |
| 72b_zs | Qwen2.5 | 72B | 82.8 | 81.2 | 59.7 |
| Tier | % Q’s | Single | Cal | HFV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0: Trivial | 41.6% | 97.8 | 97.9 | 98.0 | 0.1 |
| T1: Easy | 47.7% | 91.5 | 91.7 | 90.2 | 1.5 |
| T2: Misleading | 2.5% | 78.9 | 0.0 | 26.0 | +26.0 |
| T3: Hard | 7.1% | 0.0 | 30.6 | 29.5 | 1.1 |
| T4: Impossible | 1.1% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Split | Overall | Yes/No | Number | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| test-dev | 87.66 | 97.35 | 80.77 | 80.88 |
| test-standard | 87.83 | 97.33 | 81.00 | 81.12 |
| Method | VQAv2 | TextVQA | GQA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single best | 86.29 [85.9, 86.7] | 82.88 [81.9, 83.9] | 64.25 [63.4, 65.1] |
| Majority vote | 86.25 | 85.67 | 63.72 |
| Calibrated vote | 86.70 [86.3, 87.1] | 85.87 [85.0, 86.8] | 64.02 [63.2, 64.9] |
| Training-free methods | |||
| RCCV ( ) | 86.80 | 85.97 | 64.30 |
| QualRCCV ( ) | 86.87 [86.4, 87.3] | 86.07 [85.2, 87.0] | 64.33 [63.6, 65.2] |
| Benchmark | T2 % | Cal | HFV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VQAv2 | 2.5% | 0% | 26.0% | +26.0 |
| TextVQA | 1.5% | 0% | 18.3% | +18.3 |
| GQA | 6.5% | 0% | 23.7% | +23.7 |
| Ensemble | VQAv2 | TextVQA | GQA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced (best per family) | 86.63 | 85.13 | 64.02 |
| Full 17-model (calibrated) | 86.70 | 85.87 | 64.02 |
| 0.07 | 0.74 | +0.00 |
| Variant | Accuracy | vs Cal |
| Calibrated vote | 86.70% | — |
| QualRCCV | 86.87% | |
| LCS (full) | 87.25% | |
| Feature ablation | ||
| w/o quality | 87.12% | |
| w/o consensus | 87.23% | |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Metric | VQAv2 | TextVQA | GQA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Models ( ) | 17 | 17 | 17 |
| Families ( ) | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| variance | 58.0% | 50.9% | 62.5% |
| Top-5 variance | 75.2% | — | — |
| Eff. dimensionality | 2.86 | 3.59 | 2.49 |
| Within-family | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.73 |
| Partition | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|
| Per-model | 11 | 86.65 |
| Merged (Qwen) | 3 | 86.36 |
| Original families | 5 | 86.86 |
| Split Qwen2.5 | 7 | 86.96 |
| Calibrated (flat) | – | 86.73 |
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HFV acc. (%) | 86.91 | 86.84 | 86.75 | 86.63 | 86.58 | 86.61 | 86.60 | 86.56 | 86.42 |
| ARI | 0.44 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.54 |
| Type | Cal (%) | HFV (%) | ( ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| number | 6,667 | 80.08 | 80.28 | 0.19 (—) |
| yes/no | 6,667 | 97.19 | 97.26 | 0.06 (—) |
| other | 6,667 | 82.83 | 82.18 | 0.65 (—) |
| Mean gap | % positive | Corr(gap, imbal.) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.11 | 17% | 0.34 |
| 5 | 0.09 | 36% | 0.09 |
| 7 | 0.01 | 47% | 0.09 |
| 9 | 0.13 | 73% | 0.42 |
| 11 | 0.13 | 100% | — |
Vision-Language Models
Vision-language models connect visual inputs with text for retrieval, question answering, generation, and grounded multimodal reasoning.
See all 736 papers