CounterCount: A Diagnostic Framework for Counting Bias in Vision Language Models

Despite strong performance on many multimodal tasks, vision-language models (VLMs) still struggle with basic object counting. We investigate whether this reflects missing internal knowledge or a gap between internal representations and verbalized outputs. Training simple probes on activations from four VLMs across five counting datasets reveals that nonlinear probes can reliably detect counting errors, suggesting that VLMs often encode the correct count even when they output the wrong answer. SVCCA analysis shows that probes trained on ground-truth counts and probes trained on model outputs occupy a partially shared activation subspace but read out along misaligned directions. We further validate our findings using a causal steering intervention, proving that strengthening the direction of count-identified probes does improve model counting performance. Motivated by this result, we propose a detector-guided self-correction method that selectively re-prompts the model only when an internal error detector predicts failure. This simple inference-time intervention improves counting accuracy by up to 15.6 absolute percentage points, without any parameter updates. Our results establish activation-based error probing as both a practical tool for improving VLM counting and a mechanistic lens on the gap between internal knowledge and model outputs.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) should answer from concrete image evidence rather than language priors, dataset shortcuts, or irrelevant visual context. Existing perception-aware post-training methods encourage image use through global perturbations or attention proxies, but they do not test whether a sampled answer causally depends on the local evidence that supports it. We propose Counterfactual Evidence Disentanglement (CED), a training-time evidence audit for VLM grounding. For each response, CED neutralizes an object-centric Evidence Region and compares the resulting support drop against matched non-evidence Regions. We combine this signal with answer correctness inside GRPO, rewarding correct answers that rely on the evidence path rather than shortcut or nuisance paths. CED uses weak object-level proposals, requires no question-specific evidence annotations, and adds no inference-time overhead. Across nine public benchmarks and four backbones, CED outperforms prior RL-based post-training methods, with targeted analyses verifying its object-centric signal.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can produce Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) that sound plausible yet remain inconsistent with the visual evidence they cite. We present Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing (EDCT), an intervention-based protocol that extracts visual concepts cited in a model's explanation, applies verified minimal edits to them, and tests whether the resulting answer and explanation remain consistent with the edited image. Using this protocol, we create EDCT-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark spanning three complementary domains: knowledge-intensive visual question answering (OK-VQA), safety-critical driving (DriveLM), and 3D spatial reasoning (3DSRBench). Across the evaluated VLMs, EDCT reveals substantial faithfulness gaps, with models frequently producing responses inconsistent with verified visual changes. Finally, our fine-tuning study suggests that EDCT-generated counterfactuals provide high-impact training signals.