Compositional visual question answering requires Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to execute multiple reasoning operations like object selection, spatial relation resolution, and attribute verification. Despite strong aggregate performance, the mechanistic basis of VLM failures on this task remains underexplored. To address this gap, we analyze vision-operation misalignment in VLMs by examining how failures relate to specific reasoning operations and the internal computational pathways through which they arise and propagate. We introduce an Operation-centric mechanistic framework that decomposes VLM failures by both the reasoning operation where they originate and the internal computational pathway through which they propagate. Our analysis reveals four mechanistically distinct failure modes: grounding failure, reasoning failure, attribute extraction failure, and language prior dominance failure. Each characterized by a unique relationship between visual grounding strength and answer correctness. Through three complementary causal interventions applied across all transformer layers, we further demonstrate a pathway dissociation: grounding failures route exclusively through the feedforward network, reasoning failures route through late-layer attention, and attribute extraction failures localize to the answer-position feedforward computation. This dissociation demonstrates that different failure types require fundamentally different corrective strategies, providing a principled foundation for targeted improvements to VLM reliability in multimedia reasoning.
Vision-language models (VLMs) perform well on visual question answering with high-quality images but struggle when questions require knowledge beyond what is clearly and directly visible. In such settings, uncertainty quantification should not only indicate whether the model is likely to fail but also diagnose why it is uncertain, across dimensions such as perception, entity recognition, and knowledge retrieval. While prior work has focused on individual failure modes in isolation or treated incorrect answers as monolithic failures, we propose a unified framework for disentangling these failure modes and investigate whether pre-generation signals can predict these failure sources. Across a range of datasets and model families, we find a consistent pattern in VLM errors: some failures arise from visual or recognition bottlenecks, while others persist after the relevant entity is identified. Our main finding is that these failure sources can be predicted before decoding: recognition-related failures are best captured by visual-token representations, while failures that remain after recognition are better captured by prompt-conditioned hidden states. This pre-generation signal enables efficient failure-source prediction before the model produces an answer, allowing uncertain cases to be routed to targeted interventions such as image repair, entity recognition support, or external retrieval.
Despite the impressive performance of vision-language models (VLMs) on downstream tasks, their ability to understand and reason about causal relationships in visual inputs remains unclear. Robust causal reasoning is fundamental to solving complex high-level reasoning tasks, yet existing benchmarks often include a mixture of reasoning questions, and VLMs can frequently exploit object recognition and activity identification as shortcuts to arrive at the correct answers, making it challenging to truly assess their causal reasoning abilities. To bridge this gap, we introduce VQA-Causal and VCR-Causal, two new benchmarks specifically designed to isolate and rigorously evaluate VLMs' causal reasoning abilities. Our findings reveal that while VLMs excel in object and activity recognition, they perform poorly on causal reasoning tasks, often only marginally surpassing random guessing. Further analysis suggests that this limitation stems from a severe lack of causal expressions in widely used training datasets, where causal relationships are rarely explicitly conveyed. We additionally explore fine-tuning strategies with hard negative cases, showing that targeted fine-tuning can improve model's causal reasoning while maintaining generalization and downstream performance. Our study highlights a key gap in current VLMs and lays the groundwork for future work on causal understanding.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are AI systems that process both images and text, yet they often struggle with compositional visual reasoning questions that require chaining multiple steps together, such as identifying objects, counting them, and comparing the results. Existing approaches improve this reasoning by training models on human-written step-by-step explanations, but creating these annotations is expensive and difficult to scale. We propose a self-questioning framework that trains a VLM to break visual questions into smaller sub-questions and answer each one before producing a final response, using a reinforcement learning algorithm called Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). The model is never shown examples of how to decompose questions, it discovers this behavior on its own, guided by a reward signal that scores whether the output contains sub-questions and whether the final answer is correct. We apply this framework to a 3-billion-parameter model, training on both synthetic scenes of geometric shapes (CLEVR) and real-world photographs (A-OKVQA). On A-OKVQA, both self-questioning and standard reinforcement learning substantially improve accuracy over the untrained model (52.2% and 51.6% vs. 46.8%). We introduce the first self-questioning VLM by rewarding not only the final answer like standard RL but additionally for generating intermediate sub-questions, enabling it to discover compositional decomposition strategies. These results suggest that teaching AI systems to ask themselves intermediate questions is a promising strategy for complex visual reasoning, particularly when the difficulty of a question warrants explicit step-by-step decomposition.