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

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often lose visual grounding during multi-step reasoning: as reasoning chains grow longer, later inference steps rely increasingly on language priors rather than image evidence. We identify a consistent benchmark-level signature associated with this degradation: across 2,510 re-examined samples from four benchmarks, attention entropy over image tokens typically decreases during Round 1 and rises again after image re-injection. However, we find that effective visual re-examination requires two complementary ingredients: image re-injection and targeted self-diagnosis. Without targeted diagnosis, re-examination can even hurt performance, whereas accurate self-diagnosis yields substantial gains -- a swing of several points on key benchmarks, indicating that diagnostic quality is a key factor in whether re-examination helps or hurts in our setting. We present ReGround, a two-stage framework that teaches VLMs to self-diagnose grounding failures and selectively re-examine visual evidence, without architectural modifications or external tools. Through capability bootstrapping, a stronger variant from the same model family provides diagnostic scaffolding only during data construction, while the policy model learns to diagnose autonomously at inference time and retains most of the assisted gains. Experiments on eight benchmarks across two VLM backbones demonstrate consistent gains, especially on visually intensive multi-step reasoning tasks, while incurring only modest inference overhead relative to tool-augmented baselines. Project page: https://sespoir.github.io/reground-page/ . Code: https://github.com/sespoir/ReGround .

Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to revise their reasoning when visual evidence changes. Failures to do so are often attributed to insufficient visual attention or contextual inertia, leaving unclear what models reuse instead of recomputing from the current image. We show that evidence-bearing reasoning in a prior chain of thought (CoT) can form a textual shortcut that competes behaviorally with visual recomputation. Across 16 VLMs, a matched counterfactual analysis identifies evidence-bearing content as the most robust carrier of prior-CoT influence. Removing this evidence-bearing content shifts answer preference more than removing length-matched non-evidence context or the final-answer span, with prior control weakening progressively as more stale evidence is removed. Reordering this evidence also weakens prior control, showing that its organization modulates shortcut strength. Beyond the immediate answer, the shortcut can retain residual influence after answer correction: weakening current-image support shifts preference back toward the prior answer, while repeated prior answers and reused premises arise mainly when the shortcut remains active. To limit this influence, we introduce Fresh-State Attention Firewall (FSAF), a training-free intervention that isolates fresh computation from the prior CoT. Across five VLMs, FSAF raises visual update rate from 35.28% to 53.61% and reduces prior-answer rate from 39.22% to 3.67%. Reliable VLM self-reflection therefore requires more than looking again: fresh visual recomputation must be protected from stale textual reuse.

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.