LaViSA: A Language and Vision Structural Ambiguity Benchmark

Vision-language models can produce confident answers on visually ambiguous inputs, resulting in biased predictions. Common entropy-based methods, such as Semantic Entropy (SE), rely on output diversity. Yet our analysis shows that overconfident visual embeddings suppress output diversity under stochastic decoding, causing SE to underestimate uncertainty in such cases. Recent methods instead probe output diversity through input perturbations, including textual paraphrasing or joint text-image perturbations, and show improved performance. We study these approaches and reveals that the resulting variability is often dominated by textual changes rather than visual evidence, causing uncertainty estimates to reflect prompt sensitivity rather than visual ambiguity. We therefore propose Visual Semantic Entropy (VSE), which perturbs only the image to probe nearby visual variations while keeping the text query fixed. VSE measures uncertainty by clustering generated answers into semantic prototypes and computing the mass-weighted dispersion among them. Extensive evaluation across five modern vision-language models and five diverse VQA benchmarks demonstrates that VSE effectively captures visual ambiguity, establishing a new state-of-the-art for VLM uncertainty estimation.

Ambiguity resolution is a key challenge in multimodal machine translation (MMT), where models must genuinely leverage visual input to map an ambiguous expression to its intended meaning. Although prior work has proposed disambiguation-oriented benchmarks probing the role of vision, we observe that existing benchmarks remain limited by task-format mismatch, narrow ambiguity coverage, or insufficient visual-dependency validation. Moreover, existing ambiguity evaluations are not well suited to diverse ambiguity types in open-ended translation. To address these limitations, we present VIDA (Visually-Dependent Ambiguity), a dataset of 2,500 carefully curated instances in which resolving an annotated source span requires visual evidence. We further propose Disambiguation-Centric Metrics that use an LLM-as-a-judge classifier to verify whether annotated ambiguous expressions are resolved correctly at the span level. Experiments with two state-of-the-art LVLMs show that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) improves overall translation quality, while chain-of-thought SFT (CoT-SFT) yields stronger out-of-distribution disambiguation, suggesting that explicit disambiguation guidance improves generalization to diverse ambiguity types.

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.