Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark

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.

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) 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.