Benchmark accuracy is often implicitly assumed to reflect grounded visual understanding in vision-language models (VLMs), yet it remains unclear to what extent such scores truly reflect reliance on visual evidence. Motivated by a surprising observation that removing a substantial fraction of image tokens only degrades model performance very slightly on a widely used hallucination benchmark, we systematically investigate this mismatch in a set of open-source VLMs. Our analysis spans multiple levels of granularity, spanning global visual degradation, localized occlusion, question reformulation, answer-space expansion, and decision-level analyses beyond standard accuracy. We further complement these behavioral results with a layer-wise analysis of vision-token geometry. Throughout the experiments, we find that although VLMs do incorporate visual input, their predictions are less sensitive to the loss of fine-grained visual evidence that standard accuracy should have suggested. Even when the final prediction remains unchanged, the model's internal support for the correct answer may already be weakened. We further complement a representation-level analysis, which shows increasing similarity among visual tokens in deeper layers, providing a possible explanation for our findings. Together, these results suggest that current benchmarks are not sufficient to reliably evaluate fine-grained visual grounding in VLMs.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently rely on language priors, producing confident answers that are weakly grounded in visual evidence. While this behavior is widely observed, its internal mechanisms and its impact on benchmark evaluation remain insufficiently understood. In this work, we study language-prior reliance from both mechanistic and behavioral perspectives. Internally, we combine counterfactual layer replacement with supervised layer-wise MLP probing to trace how ground-truth visual semantics and language-prior semantics compete across the language decoder. Our analysis reveals a multi-stage bottleneck: intermediate layers often fail to effectively retrieve visual information, while later layers can further suppress surviving visual signals in favor of text-space biases. Externally, we introduce a progressive visual decay metric based on multi-step Gaussian blurring, which identifies instances whose answers remain invariant even as visual content is increasingly destroyed. Across twelve visual question-answering benchmarks and three representative VLMs, we find that a substantial fraction of examples remain answerable under severe or total visual obfuscation, indicating that current benchmarks can inadvertently reward visual ignorance. These findings demonstrate that language-prior reliance is a systematic routing failure affecting both model internals and benchmark validity. Finally, we outline critical pathways for future research, highlighting the necessity of designing training distributions and evaluation protocols built on structurally isolated or counterfactual data to enforce genuine cross-modal grounding.
The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions reflect stable multimodal processing. In this work, we argue that this assumption is insufficient. We introduce a representation-aware and frequency-aware evaluation framework that measures internal embedding drift, spectral sensitivity, and structural smoothness (spatial consistency of vision tokens), alongside standard label-based metrics. Applying this framework to modern VLMs across the SEEDBench, MMMU, and POPE datasets reveals three distinct failure modes. First, models frequently preserve predicted answers while undergoing substantial internal representation drift; for perturbations such as text overlays, this drift approaches the magnitude of inter-image variability, indicating that representations move to regions typically occupied by unrelated inputs despite unchanged outputs. Second, robustness does not improve with scale; larger models achieve higher accuracy but exhibit equal or greater sensitivity, consistent with sharper yet more fragile decision boundaries. Third, we find that perturbations affect tasks differently: they harm reasoning when they disrupt how models combine coarse and fine visual cues, but on the hallucination benchmarks, they can reduce false positives by making models generate more conservative answers.
Farooq Ahmad Wani, Alessandro Suglia, Rohit Saxena +6
Vision-language models are evaluated by aggregate accuracy on multimodal benchmarks, a practice that implicitly assumes the model uses its visual input. We show this assumption fails on 40%--97% of samples across six VLMs and three perceptual benchmarks: blurring the question-relevant visual region leaves the next-token distribution nearly unchanged. We name this phenomenon the Visual Insensitivity Gap and quantify it with a per-sample Visual Sensitivity Index (VSI). The gap is a property of samples, not of models: VSI ranks correlate across models (grand-mean Spearman rho=+0.40, permutation p<10^-3), so the same samples are flagged insensitive by VLMs sharing no architectural detail beyond a contrastively pretrained vision tower. The mechanism is concrete: on the insensitive samples, a linear probe on each model's own vision tower distinguishes perturbed from clean images at 0.72--0.79 accuracy, yet the model's argmax token changes on only 2%--11% of the same samples, an encoder--LLM gap above 0.65 on every model. Mapping VSI's diagnostic utility cell by cell surfaces a strong regime (multi-choice reasoning on capable VLMs: AUROC=0.85--0.87) and a weak regime (well-calibrated factuality, where softmax confidence already leads). VSI is not a universal best abstention signal; it is a sample-intrinsic indicator of vision-ignoring failure, best used as a conditional ensemble component.