Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about physical scenes, yet most evaluations reduce performance to a final answer. This hides whether the model perceived the right objects, represented the right physical state, predicted a plausible transition, or merely selected the right option for the wrong reasons. We introduce \wmw, an evaluation framework for auditing the language-expressed physical commitments of VLMs. Instead of scoring only $I,q\mapsto a$, we ask models to produce a typed trace $I,q\mapsto(s_0,Δs,s_1,a)$: an initial state, a state transition, a resulting state, and an answer. A hybrid verifier then checks schema validity, state grounding, transition consistency, and answer-trace compatibility, yielding typed error labels such as object, relation, force, transition, temporal, unit/scale, and faithfulness errors. We release \tracebank, a controlled trace resource with \nSeed schema- and recomputation-validated synthetic scenarios across \nFamilies physics families, \nPairs minimally perturbed contrastive preference pairs, verifier code, audit guidelines, and model outputs. We evaluate \nModels VLMs on both controlled and external physical-reasoning examples. \wmw reveals failures that answer-only evaluation misses: 35% of correct answers from mid-tier models are backed by physically invalid traces. Verifier-guided reranking recovers up to 7 percentage points of trace validity without sacrificing answer accuracy, and trace-level preference tuning reduces hidden inconsistency by 41% relative. The contribution is not another final-answer physics benchmark, but a reusable protocol for measuring whether a VLM's stated physical world can be true at the same time as its answer.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their safe deployment in real-world applications. Existing LLM self-evaluation methods rely on a model's ability to estimate the correctness of its own outputs, which can improve deployment reliability; however, they depend heavily on language priors and are therefore ill-suited for evaluating vision-conditioned predictions. We propose VAUQ, a vision-aware uncertainty quantification framework for LVLM self-evaluation that explicitly measures how strongly a model's output depends on visual evidence. VAUQ introduces the Image-Information Score (IS), which captures the reduction in predictive uncertainty attributable to visual input, and an unsupervised core-region masking strategy that amplifies the influence of salient regions. Combining predictive entropy with this core-masked IS yields a training-free scoring function that reliably reflects answer correctness. Comprehensive experiments show that VAUQ consistently outperforms existing self-evaluation methods across multiple datasets.

When VLMs answer correctly, do they genuinely rely on visual information? We introduce a Tri-Layer Diagnostic Framework with three per-sample metrics: Latent Anomaly Detection, Visual Necessity Score, and Competition Score, which disentangle perception, dependency, and alignment failures. Across 9 VLMs and 9,000 model-sample pairs under counterfactual blind, noise, and conflict interventions, 72.9% of samples exhibit Visual Sycophancy, a Split Beliefs pattern in which internal evidence is preserved yet a hallucinated answer is decoded, while zero samples show Robust Refusal, indicating that current alignment training has eliminated refusal as a decoding outcome. Scaling within the Qwen-VL family, both within- and across-generation, monotonically reduces Language Shortcuts but amplifies Visual Sycophancy, showing that scale and newer post-training alone cannot resolve the grounding problem. Diagnostic scores further enable a training-free selective-prediction strategy yielding up to +9.5 percentage points accuracy at 50% coverage.