cs.AIMay 8, 2026

From Pixels to Prompts: Vision-Language Models

Authors: Khang Hoang Nhat Vo

Abstract

When you read a paper about a new Vision-Language Model today, it can be easy to forget how strange this idea would have sounded not so long ago. Teaching machines to see was already hard. Teaching them to read and generate language was already hard. Asking them to do both at once - and then to reason, answer questions, follow instructions, and sometimes even surprise us - still carries a quiet trace of science fiction, even as it becomes routine. This book was born from a simple feeling: it is too easy to get lost. The field moves quickly, new model names appear constantly, and the gap between "I know the buzzwords" and "I actually understand how this works" can feel uncomfortably wide. I have felt that gap many times. If you are holding this book, you probably have too. My goal is not to provide an exhaustive catalog of every dataset, benchmark, and new model variant. Instead, I want to offer something more modest - and, I hope, more durable: a clear mental map of Vision-Language Models. Enough structure that you can read new papers with confidence; enough intuition that you can design your own systems without feeling as if you are assembling LEGO bricks blindly.

Explore similar work

Jul 6, 2026cs.CV

Does It Fail to See or Fail to Know? Attributing Errors in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on visual question answering with high-quality images but struggle when questions require knowledge beyond what is clearly and directly visible. In such settings, uncertainty quantification should not only indicate whether the model is likely to fail but also diagnose why it is uncertain, across dimensions such as perception, entity recognition, and knowledge retrieval. While prior work has focused on individual failure modes in isolation or treated incorrect answers as monolithic failures, we propose a unified framework for disentangling these failure modes and investigate whether pre-generation signals can predict these failure sources. Across a range of datasets and model families, we find a consistent pattern in VLM errors: some failures arise from visual or recognition bottlenecks, while others persist after the relevant entity is identified. Our main finding is that these failure sources can be predicted before decoding: recognition-related failures are best captured by visual-token representations, while failures that remain after recognition are better captured by prompt-conditioned hidden states. This pre-generation signal enables efficient failure-source prediction before the model produces an answer, allowing uncertain cases to be routed to targeted interventions such as image repair, entity recognition support, or external retrieval.
Khang Nhat Hoang Vo, Artem Vazhentsev, Artem Shelmanov +2
Jun 11, 2026cs.CV

Mirage Probes: How Vision Models Fake Visual Understanding

Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer image-based questions confidently, and often correctly, even when no image is provided. This mirage behavior inflates benchmark scores without reflecting visual grounding. Prior work treats this as a single failure mode. We argue it is two. Using Mirage Probes, a contrastive probing framework that pairs paraphrased question variants with matched mirage and non-mirage labels on the same image, we show that mirage behavior is linearly decodable from internal activations across residual stream, MLP, post-attention, and attention-head sites in two open-source VLMs. We demonstrate that a Naive Bayes text baseline cannot recover this signal, ruling out surface lexical confounds. Cross-benchmark separability patterns, together with a novel Prior Harnessing Index (PHI) measuring how much a model can answer from text alone, expose two distinct regimes: textual biases, where the model answers from language priors without engaging visual representations, and spurious images, where it constructs false visual content in latent space and answers as if grounded. The distinction has direct mitigation consequences: text-distribution cleaning can address the first regime but cannot reach the second, since spurious-image mirages live in the model's visual representations rather than its text. Faithful visual grounding will require interventions at the representational level.
Daniel Ben-Levi, Judah Goldfeder, Weiliang Zhao +5
May 15, 2026cs.CV

Are VLMs Seeing or Just Saying? Uncovering the Illusion of Visual Re-examination

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often produce self-reflective statements like "let me check the figure again" during reasoning. Do such statements trigger genuine visual re-examination, or are they merely learned textual patterns? We investigate this via VisualSwap, an image-swap probing framework: after a model reasons over an image, we replace it with a visually similar but semantically different one and test whether the model notices. We introduce VS-Bench, 800 image pairs curated from MathVista, MathVerse, MathVision, and MMMU-Pro. Experiments on Qwen3-VL, Kimi-VL, and ERNIE-VL reveal a striking failure: models overwhelmingly miss the swap, with accuracy dropping by up to 60%. Counterintuitively, thinking models are nearly 3x more vulnerable than their instructed counterparts, and scaling offers no mitigation. Multi-turn user instructions restore visual grounding, but self-generated reflective statements during continuous generation do not. Attention analysis explains why: user instructions substantially elevate attention to visual tokens, whereas self-reflection does not. Current VLMs tend to say rather than actually see when claiming to perform visual re-examination. Our code and dataset are available at the project page: https://visualswap.github.io
Chufan Shi, Cheng Yang, Yaokang Wu +4