Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning
Organizations: University of Edinburgh · Fudan University
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth. In deployment, a key question is whether an individual prediction can be trusted when its ground truth is unavailable. Self-consistency alone may fail to capture important failure modes: a VLM may produce stable-but-wrong estimates or rely on textual priors rather than visual evidence. We formulate answer-level selective prediction for quantitative physical reasoning and propose Answer-Level Trust Selection (ATS), a post-hoc, model-agnostic framework for accepting or rejecting individual VLM predictions. ATS requires no fine-tuning, auxiliary verifier, or access to the model's internal logits. Instead, it aggregates eight interpretable behavioral diagnostic scores derived from repeated queries and controlled interventions into a unified trust score. We evaluate ATS in depth on Qwen2.5-VL-7B and across 20 VLM backbones, examining selective performance, diagnostic behavior, and targeted failure modes. Our results show that intervention-based diagnostics help identify stable-but-wrong and prior-tracking predictions that repeated agreement alone may miss. However, improved failure-case rejection can come at the cost of lower retention of correct predictions. ATS therefore complements model-level capability evaluation with answer-level reliability assessment for quantitative VLM predictions. Code will be released upon publication.
Figures & tables
| Stable-but-wrong | Prior tracking | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selector | Reject | Correct retain | Wrong reject | Correct retain |
| SC-only | 0.013 | 0.986 | 0.654 | 0.491 |
| Generic UQ | 0.271 | 0.830 | 0.638 | 0.523 |
| Equal-weight ATS | 0.424 | 0.723 | 0.906 | 0.248 |
| Prior-weighted ATS | 0.409 | 0.727 | 0.958 | 0.111 |
| Learned ATS | 0.379 | 0.777 | 0.574 | 0.512 |
| Method | @30% | @50% | @70% | AURC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust-score baselines | ||||
| SC-only | 0.5429 | 0.4989 | 0.4426 | 0.5338 |
| Equal-weight ATS | 0.4374 | 0.4441 | 0.4444 | 0.5655 |
| Prior-weighted ATS | 0.5187 | 0.4889 | 0.4476 | 0.5300 |
| Learned ATS | 0.4069 | 0.4120 | 0.4028 | 0.5977 |
| Prior-weighted ATS w/o | 0.4879 | 0.4734 | 0.4352 | 0.5406 |