How Much Does It Cost to Answer My Question? Benchmarking Cloud VLM-based VQA Systems

Visual Question Answering (VQA) with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is increasingly used in privacy-sensitive and bandwidth-constrained settings. Federated Learning (FL), Split Learning (SL), and U-Shaped Split Learning (USL) keep raw data local, but transmitting all visual tokens across a model partition remains costly and can expose private information. We propose QPriv-VL, a question-guided, privacy-aware token-pruning framework for FL, SL, and USL that prunes visual tokens before transmission based on task utility and privacy sensitivity. Its core component is a lightweight Dynamic Threshold Predictor (DTP) that jointly estimates a sample-specific pruning ratio and a token-level retention mask in one forward pass. DTP combines question relevance, computed from cross-modal similarity between visual patches and the pooled question embedding, with a sensitivity signal derived from frozen DINOv2 features. This allows the model to suppress potentially sensitive regions while preserving patches useful for answering the question, without requiring sensitivity labels. We evaluate QPriv-VL on GQA, OK-VQA, VQAv2, SLAKE, VQA-RAD, and PathVQA against four privacy attack families: FSHA, FORA, iDLG, and attribute-inference membership inference attacks. DTP matches or outperforms fixed-ratio pruning while using substantially fewer transmitted tokens. On VQA-RAD, it reduces membership-inference attack success from 0.99 to 0.76-0.79, lowers FSHA and FORA reconstruction PSNR relative to fixed-ratio pruning, and preserves competitive VQA accuracy using about 40% of the original visual-token budget. A sensitivity exclusion ratio of 1.20 +/- 0.18 indicates preferential removal of privacy-sensitive patches, while explainability analysis shows that retention adapts to question semantics rather than generic visual saliency.

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly power consumer-facing AI search, yet evaluating them on the diversity of everyday visual questions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks often target predefined capabilities, such as multi-hop retrieval or long-form synthesis, whereas users ask photo-grounded questions spanning a long tail of everyday scenarios. Despite advances in VLMs, users on Xiaohongshu, a mainstream Chinese image-sharing platform, continue to turn to other people for help with everyday visual questions. Motivated by this behaviour, we curate NoteVQA from these questions, yielding 252 items across 12 topical categories and 7 user intents. Each item includes a concise reference distilled from expert community responses and a human-audited interleaved reference answer that combines textual explanations with supporting visual evidence. We evaluate both short-answer correctness and interleaved-answer quality. To support the latter, we introduce AgenticInterleave, a single-agent ReAct framework for retrieval-supported answer generation, together with IVR-12, a 12-dimensional rubric for assessing the content, presentation, and image quality of interleaved references and model outputs. Across 10 frontier VLMs, the highest short-answer accuracy is 52.8%, while adding agentic search to Qwen3.5-397B-A17B improves accuracy by only 2.0%. For interleaved answers, the same model running AgenticInterleave scores 3.52 under IVR-12, compared with 4.65 for the human-audited references, with the largest gap in content quality. These results highlight the challenges that everyday visual questions pose for current VLMs in both answer accuracy and the quality of visually grounded explanations.

Test-time scaling (TTS) reliably improves reasoning in large language models, but whether it transfers to small open vision-language models remains unclear. We examine this on EXAMS-V, a multilingual visual multiple-choice benchmark, comparing self-consistency, describe-then-reason with PRM-guided beam search, and two post-hoc selectors across Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct and Qwen3.5-4B. What matters is the conditions under which TTS runs, not the search or verification machinery. The largest factor is parseability: an early prompt format left many chains reasoning correctly yet never committing to an answer letter, which a standard answer cue and a guided repair step largely remove. A larger decoding budget removes the rest: raising the per-chain token limit from 1k to 2k recovers 3.7 pp, whereas sampling more chains (8 to 16) adds only 0.15 pp. Once chains have room to finish, elaborate methods contribute little: PRM-guided beam search trails plain self-consistency by 0.39 pp at over eight times the cost, and neither a training-free generative critic nor a trained multimodal PRM beats majority vote across both policies. The largest gain comes instead from the policy model itself (+11.4 pp). Our best configuration reaches 84.1% on the held-out ImageCLEF 2026 test split, ranking first on the Visual MCQ leaderboard.