BUZZY: Contrastive Scoring to Mitigate Text-Induced Bias in Multimodal Multiple-Choice QA
Authors: Taeyun Roh, Suhyeong Park, Dongyoung Lee, Eunyeong Jo, Wonjune Jang, Junha Jung, Jaewoo Kang
Abstract
Multimodal multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) provides a standardized and objectively measurable setting for evaluating vision-language models (VLMs). However, because the MCQA format incorporates the candidate choices into the input context, it introduces several unintended biases. Previous work has primarily focused on structural biases, such as preferences for certain choices. Instead, we argue that the choices act as textual priors, causing models to favor linguistically plausible options regardless of the visual content. We hypothesize and empirically verify that a model genuinely relies on visual evidence only when its multimodal distribution significantly diverges from its text-only distribution. Based on this observation we propose BUZZY,a training-free decoding method that corrects multimodal predictions by subtracting the text-only distribution. Experiments with five VLMs on five multimodal MCQA benchmarks demonstrate that BUZZY achieves the highest average accuracy among state-of-the-art methods while reducing inference latency by over 28% compared to prior contrastive decoding approaches. Overall, these results suggest that amplifying the visual signal by penalizing text-only preferences is key to efficient and robust multimodal MCQA reasoning.
We present our ImageCLEF 2026 Multimodal Reasoning system for the Visual Multiple Choice Question Answering (Visual MCQ) and Visual Open Question Answering (Visual OpenQA) subtasks. The challenge requires reliable reasoning over multilingual educational and scientific images with dense text, diagrams, charts, tables, formulas, and units, while enforcing strict answer formats. Our central finding is that robust output control is as important as model choice. For Visual MCQ, we replace fragile free-form generation with direct candidate label scoring from vision-language model logits, then combine complementary runs through score fusion and voting. For Visual OpenQA, we use image enhancement, concise final answer prompting, deterministic decoding, and targeted post-processing to remove reasoning traces and formatting artifacts. Without task-specific model training, our official submissions achieved third place in Visual MCQ with 0.7108 accuracy and first place in Visual OpenQA with 0.6488 COMET, 0.1391 BLEU, 0.2762 ROUGE L, and 0.2383 METEOR. The results highlight the practical value of inference engineering: careful scoring, ensembling, prompting, and cleanup can turn strong VLMs into reliable competition systems.
Previous works identify sensitivity to option order as a key issue in multiple-choice VQA (MC-VQA) evaluation and propose protocols to mitigate this effect. We show that such mitigation is insufficient to ensure the validity of MC-VQA as a reliable benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLMs): performance remains highly sensitive to semantically neutral prompt format choices that are not controlled by current benchmarks. In a large-scale study spanning seven MLLMs and five MC-VQAs datasets, we find frequent rank reversals even under order-invariant evaluation. These reversals arise when we systematically vary option ID sets, delimiters, and separators, yielding 48 semantically equivalent prompt formats. Mechanistic analyses trace this instability to low-level language modeling effects: tokenizer-induced fusion or removal of option ID tokens introduces corrupted option ID tokens into the input sequence, while the choice of option ID sets directly affects the reliability of attention patterns for option selection. Accordingly, MC-VQA rankings correlate weakly with open-ended evaluation, indicating that MC-VQA reflects option-selection dynamics in addition to multimodal reasoning. These findings identify prompt formatting as a major, previously under-controlled confounder in MC-VQA benchmarking and motivate evaluation protocols that explicitly control prompt format sensitivity.
Fabio Rosenthal, Sebastian Schmidt, Thorsten Graf +3
When a multimodal large language model answers a visual reasoning question correctly, is the prediction actually supported by the task-critical visual evidence? Correct answers can coexist with flawed reasoning, making accuracy alone an incomplete test of grounding. We introduce VisualFLIP, a paired benchmark with 1,374 images arranged as same-question perturbation pairs across cardinality, attribute, spatial, and logic tasks. Each pair keeps the question fixed but minimally changes the evidence so the gold answer deterministically flips. We evaluate 24 MLLMs with pair accuracy, which requires solving both sides of a pair, and Collapse Rate (CR), which measures how often a model that solves at least one side repeats the same non-empty answer for both images. Together, these metrics show that paired correctness and evidence dependence are related but distinct: capable models can still fail to update after task-critical visual changes, and collapse becomes more severe for some models when the edited image follows an earlier answer in a sequential setting. Further details are available on our project page: https://didizhu-judy.github.io/VisualFLIP/