Multimodal LLMs apply the language model interface to visual inputs, where ordinal regression tasks such as age estimation, image quality assessment, and disease grading require autoregressive decisions over ordered class labels. We ask whether MLLMs reliably convert internal ordinal evidence into ordered digit-token outputs. Across four ordinal benchmarks and four MLLM backbones, ordinal labels are linearly recoverable from hidden states with Spearman correlation up to 0.938, and a task-designed prompt further sharpens this structure. Yet native digit-token outputs weakly expose it: the unembedding matrix filters the ordinal direction, and the digit-token row space retains below 1.15% across all 16 model-dataset combinations, with a 16 to 77 absolute-point accuracy gap between linear-probe and native outputs. We introduce Ordinal Lens Alignment (OLA), a frozen-backbone inference-time method that trains lightweight W_S-anchored lenses on mid-to-deep decoder layers, fuses them into an ordinal distribution, and corrects only digit-token logits at generation. OLA outperforms the SOTA LoRA-tuned OrderChain baseline in most settings while keeping the MLLM frozen, surpasses discriminative ordinal baselines in most cells, and improves over an offline lens in every setting.
Figures & tables
Adience ( C=8 )
DR ( C=5 )
HCI ( C=5 )
Aesthetic ( C=5 )
Backbone
IT/N
LT/N
LT/D
IT/N
LT/N
LT/D
IT/N
LT/N
LT/D
IT/N
LT/N
LT/D
Qwen3-VL
0.916
0.872
0.938
0.427
0.276
0.758
0.617
0.556
0.843
0.859
0.864
0.916
Gemma-4
0.887
0.893
0.929
0.362
0.255
0.757
0.430
0.551
0.773
0.794
0.838
0.919
LLaVA-NeXT
0.917
0.920
0.924
0.421
0.365
0.756
0.554
0.586
0.800
0.822
0.860
0.906
Table 1: SRCC Diagnostics for Probe-Readable Ordinal Evidence
Figure 1: Spectral Filtering of the Probed Ordinal Direction by the Unembedding Matrix WU
Backbone
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Qwen2.5-VL
1.05%
0.92%
0.99%
1.01%
Qwen3-VL
1.12%
1.06%
1.08%
1.14%
Gemma-4
0.97%
0.88%
0.93%
0.96%
LLaVA-NeXT
1.03%
0.95%
0.97%
1.02%
Table 2: Digit-Token Row-Space Retention of Probe-Derived Ordinal Directions
Figure 2: Architecture of Ordinal Lens Alignment for Inference-Time
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Backbone
Method
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
Mean ACC ↑
Discriminative
Ord2Seq
0.639
0.430
0.842
0.250
0.609
0.520
0.644
0.304
0.684
NumCLIP
0.651
0.410
0.831
0.270
0.696
0.350
0.665
0.296
0.711
Qwen2.5-VL 7B
Naive Prompt
0.572
0.544
0.156
1.567
0.278
0.952
0.372
0.772
0.345
CAA
0.628
0.396
0.702
0.357
0.338
0.817
0.245
0.928
0.478
OrderChain
0.765
0.282
0.870
0.140
0.653
0.347
0.705
0.295
0.748
Table 3: Main benchmark results
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Backbone
Method
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
Mean ACC ↑
Qwen2.5-VL 7B
Designed Prompt
0.601
0.399
0.830
0.227
0.483
0.610
0.454
0.681
0.592
Probe Steering
0.650
0.364
0.725
0.331
0.386
0.749
0.429
0.666
0.548
Probe Only
0.780
0.267
0.910
0.095
0.623
0.390
0.670
0.350
0.746
Capacity Probe
0.792
0.272
0.894
0.082
0.616
0.401
0.687
0.329
0.747
Single-Layer Logit
0.715
0.305
0.895
0.110
0.620
0.410
0.530
0.470
0.690
Table 4: Component ablation across the design space identified by the diagnostics.
Figure 3: OLA accuracy under varying numbers of fused mid-to-deep decoder layers
Figure 4: Row-Normalized Confusion Matrices
Figure 5: Layer-Wise PCA of Last-Token Hidden States
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
y
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Range (yrs)
0–2
4–6
8–13
15–20
25–32
38–43
48–53
60+
Count
2,488
2,140
2,124
1,642
5,081
2,339
830
872
Appendix
Table 5: Adience class distribution.
y
0
1
2
3
4
Grade
No DR
Mild
Mod.
Severe
Prolif.
Count
25,810
2,443
5,292
873
708
Appendix
Table 6: DR class distribution.
y
0
1
2
3
4
Quality
Unaccept.
Flawed
Ordinary
Profess.
Except.
Count
23
552
7,603
4,574
232
Appendix
Table 7: Aesthetic class distribution.
Dataset
Attribute
C
Train+val
Test/fold
Folds
Adience
age
8
∼14,900
∼3,700
5 (official)
DR
disease grade
5
28,101
7,025
5 (random)
HCI
decade
5
1,060
265
5 (random)
Aesthetic
aesthetic rating
5
12,777
207
Balanced test
Appendix
Table 8: Per-dataset split summary.
Layer
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
2
0.6845
0.7522
0.5771
0.7405
4
0.7283
0.7433
0.3927
0.7175
6
0.7154
0.7503
0.4278
0.7301
8
0.7423
0.7530
0.4769
0.7607
10
0.7259
0.7539
0.4980
0.7773
12
0.7632
0.7542
0.5234
0.8155
Appendix
Table 9: Per-layer SRCC on Qwen3-VL.
Layer
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
2
0.7987
0.7485
0.3744
0.4907
9
0.8023
0.7492
0.2497
0.5670
12
0.8095
0.7541
0.2413
0.7309
15
0.8481
0.7554
0.5146
0.7909
18
0.8866
0.7564
0.7188
0.7934
20
0.8885
0.7563
0.7251
0.8610
Appendix
Table 10: Per-layer SRCC on Gemma-4.
Layer
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
2
0.7751
0.7495
0.3611
0.6679
4
0.8164
0.7487
0.3857
0.7171
6
0.8304
0.7504
0.3736
0.6762
8
0.8504
0.7504
0.3742
0.6867
10
0.8608
0.7525
0.3568
0.6788
12
0.8666
0.7557
0.3250
0.6950
Appendix
Table 11: Per-layer SRCC on LLaVA-NeXT.
Backbone \ Dataset
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Qwen3-VL
L20 / 0.9376
L20 / 0.7578
L28 / 0.8432
L24 / 0.9163
Gemma-4
L40 / 0.9293
L21 / 0.7567
L26 / 0.7728
L40 / 0.9192
LLaVA-NeXT
L26 / 0.9236
L14 / 0.7559
L30 / 0.8003
L16 / 0.9056
Appendix
Table 12: Best layer and best SRCC per backbone–dataset cell.
Figure 6: Layer-wise 3D PCA of last-token hidden states on Adience under Qwen3-VL. Points are coloured by the eight age groups; the ordinal arc emerges in the middle-to-late decoder layers.
Figure 7: Layer-wise 3D PCA on Adience under Qwen2.5-VL.
Figure 8: Layer-wise 3D PCA on Adience under Gemma-4.
Figure 9: Layer-wise 3D PCA on Adience under LLaVA-NeXT.
Figure 10: Layer-wise 3D PCA on DR under Qwen3-VL. Points are coloured by the five ICDR severity grades.
Figure 11: Layer-wise 3D PCA on HCI under Qwen3-VL. Points are coloured by the five decade classes.
Figure 12: Layer-wise 3D PCA on Aesthetic under Qwen3-VL. Points are coloured by the five aesthetic grades.
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Backbone
Method
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
Qwen2.5-VL
Naive Prompt
0.5722 ± 0.0168
0.5442 ± 0.0644
0.1564 ± 0.0058
1.5670 ± 0.0118
0.2788 ± 0.0027
0.9520 ± 0.0044
0.3723
0.7721
CAA
0.6284 ± 0.1641
0.3956 ± 0.3129
0.7022 ± 0.0142
0.3574 ± 0.0211
0.3381 ± 0.0396
0.8167 ± 0.0882
0.2453
0.9283
OrderChain
0.7650 ± 0.0344
0.2823 ± 0.0127
0.8700 ± 0.0098
0.1400 ± 0.0016
0.6528 ± 0.0423
0.3473 ± 0.0223
0.7053
0.2947
OLA (ours)
0.8088 ± 0.0156
0.2327 ± 0.0045
0.9201 ± 0.0040
0.0799 ± 0.0004
0.6848 ± 0.0281
0.3153 ± 0.0132
0.6962
0.3039
Qwen3-VL
Naive Prompt
0.5805 ± 0.0340
0.4011 ± 0.0299
0.6882 ± 0.0121
0.5704 ± 0.0229
0.3281 ± 0.0201
0.9526 ± 0.0202
0.3969
0.8588
Appendix
Table 13: Main results on four ordinal benchmarks under four MLLM backbones, with mean ± std over five folds (Adience, DR, HCI); Aesthetic uses one class-balanced fold.
Adience
DR
HCI
Aesthetic
Backbone
Method
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
ACC ↑
MAE ↓
Qwen2.5-VL
Capacity Probe
0.7923 ± 0.0250
0.2721 ± 0.0086
0.8941 ± 0.0178
0.0821 ± 0.0016
0.6161 ± 0.0356
0.4009 ± 0.0232
0.6871
0.3291
Probe Only
0.7800 ± 0.0286
0.2667 ± 0.0098
0.9100 ± 0.0106
0.0950 ± 0.0011
0.6230 ± 0.0251
0.3904 ± 0.0157
0.6700
0.3500
Probe Steering
0.6496 ± 0.1851
0.3639 ± 0.2881
0.7246 ± 0.0071
0.3306 ± 0.0196
0.3864 ± 0.0619
0.7488 ± 0.0806
0.4293
0.6658
Single-Layer Logit
0.7150 ± 0.0215
0.3050 ± 0.0092
0.8950 ± 0.0086
0.1100 ± 0.0011
0.6200 ± 0.0258
0.4100 ± 0.0171
0.5300
0.4701
Designed Prompt
0.6012 ± 0.0280
0.3989 ± 0.0180
0.8300 ± 0.0054
0.2270 ± 0.0015
0.4825 ± 0.0248
0.6104 ± 0.0314
0.4541
0.6812
Appendix
Table 14: Ablation studies on four ordinal benchmarks under four MLLM backbones (mean ± std over five folds for Adience, DR, HCI; Aesthetic uses one class-balanced fold).
A large language model (LLM) can turn a text into a distribution over an ordered scale, but that distribution is a noisy measurement: saturated, compressed or exaggerated, and biased in a consistent direction. We propose CORDIAL, which treats the model's output as a noisy reading of the true label and corrects it with a channel of five interpretable parameters. The channel is small enough for its posterior to be averaged from a handful of labels, and we prove that the resulting calibration preserves first-order stochastic order. On Amazon reviews and CMU-MOSEI transcripts with four LLMs, CORDIAL has the lowest log loss among nine calibrators in 76 of 80 settings with 5 to 100 labels; with 20 labels and the main 7B reader, it matches the strongest baseline using 28-54 labels. The same posterior lets us learn priors from other tasks and fuse several LLMs. Unrestricted calibrators such as Dirichlet calibration overtake it only as the calibration set grows into the hundreds or thousands.
Xiangwei Wang, Peng Wang, Saman Halgamuge
The University of Melbourne, Australia · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have advanced across multimodal benchmarks but still show clear gaps in ordinal number understanding, i.e., the ability to track relative positions and generalize to large indices. We present OrdinalBench, a diagnostic benchmark that standardizes ordinal number understanding as an evaluation task for VLMs. The core task is N-th object identification, defined by a starting reference and traversal rule. Task difficulty is controlled along three axes: (i) ordinal magnitude, from small numbers to extreme cases up to 300; (ii) arrangement complexity, from single loops to maze-like paths; and (iii) object count. The benchmark provides 39,000 question-answer pairs, each annotated with a ground-truth reasoning trajectory and balanced across difficulty levels for controlled large-scale testing. Beyond answer-only evaluation, our framework requires models to generate structured stepwise traces of the counting process and provides an open evaluation toolkit that measures both final accuracy and step-level path consistency. Zero-shot evaluations of GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3.5, and Molmo reveal sharp degradation under large-ordinal and complex-path conditions, highlighting weak generalization despite strong scores on standard multimodal tasks. By framing ordinal number understanding as a core target, OrdinalBench provides a reproducible benchmark and diagnostic framework for developing VLMs with stronger sequential reasoning. All data and code are available at https://ordinalbench.github.io/
Yusuke Tozaki, Hisashi Miyamori
Division of Frontier Informatics, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan
Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.