Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) show strong visualization interpretation, yet it is unclear whether their responses reflect genuine reasoning over visual evidence or factual priors learned during training. Current evaluations mix these two sources, obscuring when correct visual interpretation is overridden by memorized facts. We present a framework that isolates visual correctness from factual correctness, revealing validity limitations in existing visualization literacy assessments. Across three experiments with 15 state-of-the-art LVLMs: (1) several models reach human-level performance on standard tests (VLAT), but this may reflect factual recall rather than visual understanding, while randomized-data tests (reVLAT) underestimate literacy when correct visual interpretation is superseded by factual priors. (2) Using our Counterfactual Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (CVLAT) with capability-normalized arbitration metrics, we classify models by the sign of their visual-factual reliance index (VFRI), revealing a visualization-oriented majority and a factual knowledge-oriented minority, though several near-zero cases warrant caution. A human baseline (N=30) on the same counterfactual items confirms that people overwhelmingly follow the chart under conflict, providing a human reference point. (3) Prompt-based intervention can shift prioritization, but its effectiveness is highly model-dependent and direction-asymmetric, and high chart-reading capability does not predict prompt-controllability. Overall, high visualization accuracy is not sufficient evidence of faithful visual reasoning: reliable integration into visual analytics requires evaluating not only visualization literacy but also how models arbitrate between visual evidence and factual priors when the two diverge. Benchmark and code: https://github.com/JaeyoungKim-HCIL/CVLAT
Large Vision Language Models have integrated reasoning capabilities, elevating cognitive performance to new levels. However, existing evaluations either focus solely on perception or rely on specific domains such as maths or coding. Evaluation for reasoning capabilities that align with an open-world environment is still required, especially one that considers perception and reasoning jointly. To bridge this gap, we propose to evaluate LVLMs by exploiting visual illusions as a diagnostic tool. Visual illusions are phenomena in which the human visual system misinterprets objective signals, resulting in an understanding that deviates from reality. We constructed IllusionReasoning, a benchmark of illusion images collected from the real world, incorporating diverse annotated question-answer pairs. Based on IllusionReasoning, we show that the reasoning capabilities of a wide range of LVLMs are not as advanced as claimed. Our work provides new insights into LVLMs and offers future direction for optimisation.
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 ∼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.
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.