When Discourse Pressures Conflict: Information Structure in Vision-Language Model Outputs

Visual inputs are often assumed to improve language understanding in multimodal models. We examine this assumption by asking whether vision-language models (VLMs) can distinguish useful visual evidence from incidental image context in lexical judgments. We use human concreteness and imagery ratings because they span words with varying expected visual relevance, from abstract and low-imagery words to concrete and high-imagery words. We find that real-image contexts do not yield consistent gains and often hurt alignment with human ratings, most sharply when visual evidence is least relevant. Through probing and canonical correlation analysis, complemented by an attribution case study, we find that real-image contexts are associated with representational shifts and greater sensitivity to spurious visual cues, coinciding with weaker recoverability of the targeted lexical properties. We further show that instructing models to focus solely on textual content at inference time can reduce this degradation, with the clearest gains on these vulnerable subsets. Our findings suggest that current instruction-tuned VLMs need better calibration of when visual context should inform lexical judgments.

Whether attention weights faithfully reflect model reasoning has been actively debated in NLP, yet this question remains largely unexplored for the visual modality in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We address this gap through causal perturbation analysis on current VLMs, evaluating both the comprehensiveness and sufficiency gap of attention-ranked visual tokens. Our analysis reveals that visual attention faithfulness is heterogeneous, manifesting in three distinct processing modes: Faithful-Sufficient, where top-$k$ attention tokens are both necessary and sufficient for prediction; Faithful-Distributed, where they are necessary but broader visual context remains required; and Non-Focal, where no localized attention region is individually necessary while visual information remains an essential trigger for prediction. Furthermore, human-annotated ground-truth regions satisfy comprehensiveness in only $\sim 60$% of cases compared with model attention rankings, revealing systematic divergence between model visual reliance and human intuition. We demonstrate these patterns across both general VQA on VQAv2 and document tasks on VRDU and ChartQA, showing that visual attention faithfulness varies systematically with processing demands and model architectures rather than being uniformly faithful or unfaithful.

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.