PragMatch: Separating Pragmatic Incongruity from Cross-Modal Mismatch in Large Vision-Language Models

When asked what a meme or sarcastic post means, Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) tend to describe what the image shows rather than what the author is trying to communicate. Standard instruction tuning entangles a post's literal content with its pragmatic meaning, letting surface-level details contaminate the final response. We reframe meme understanding as a problem of literal-pragmatic decomposition and propose \textbf{Intent Projection}, a framework that separates the two signals at the representation, output, and objective levels within a single LVLM backbone. At the representation level, an orthogonal projection module removes dominant unimodal directions from the fused image-text representation, retaining only the pragmatic residual, while a surface-real affect classifier anchors the decoder with a discrete tag that names the polarity gap. At the output level, the model externalizes a structured reasoning chain, and at the objective level a contrastive reward explicitly penalizes answers that restate the literal description. Across six multimodal benchmarks, Intent Projection consistently outperforms open-source baselines and narrows the gap to proprietary models, with the largest gains on high-divergence posts where literal collapse is most damaging.

Multimodal sarcasm detection, which aims to precisely identify pragmatic incongruities between literal text and nonverbal cues, has gained substantial attention in multimodal understanding. Recent advancements have predominantly relied on naïve similarity-based attention mechanisms and uniform late fusion strategies.Furthermore, given that functional entanglement restricts traditional late fusions, we incorporate a scalar congruity routing mechanism and a prior-guided contextual graph. This mechanism anchors a generalized incongruity manifold through a two-stage asymmetric optimization driven by inconsistency-aware contrastive learning, selectively fusing only the most discriminative multi-granularity evidence. Extensive experiments on the \texttt{MUStARD} benchmark and its spurious-correlation-mitigated balanced datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves new state-of-the-art performance, surpassing the strongest multimodal baseline by a substantial 3.14% improvement in Macro-F1. By architecturally isolating atomic, composition, and contextual conflicts. This work provides a robust, decoupled paradigm for modeling subtle pragmatic incongruities in human communication.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as evaluators in tasks requiring nuanced image understanding, yet their reliability in scoring alignment between images and text descriptions remains underexplored. We investigate whether small, open-weight VLMs exhibit \emph{sycophantic} behavior when evaluating image-text alignment: assigning high scores without grounding their judgments in visual evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the \emph{Bluffing Coefficient} (\bc), a metric that measures the mismatch between a model's score and its evidence recall. We evaluate six open-weight VLMs ranging from 450M to 8B parameters on a benchmark of 173,810 AI-generated character portraits paired with detailed textual descriptions. Our analysis reveals a significant inverse correlation between model size and sycophancy rate ($r = -0.96$, $p = 0.002$), with smaller models exhibiting substantially higher rates of unjustified high scores. The smallest model tested (LFM2-VL, 450M) produced sycophantic evaluations in 22.3% of cases, compared to 6.0% for the largest (LLaVA-1.6, 7B). These findings have direct implications for the deployment of small, open-weight VLMs as automated evaluators within attribute-rich, synthetic image evaluation tasks, where the gap between assigned scores and cited visual evidence is both measurable and consequential.