Teaching Vision-Language Models to Use the Scale They Are Given: Label-Free Equivariance Training for Metric Physical Reasoning
Authors: Kaizhen Tan, Yang Feng, Heqing Du, Siru Tao, Xin Xu, Hanzhe Hong
Organizations: New York University · Columbia University · Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
Metric questions about video require vision-language models to use supplied real-world references to convert visual measurements into physical units. Yet we find that current models use this scale information only partially. When every world-space quantity in a prompt is rescaled by a common factor, the video remains equally valid and the correct answer changes by exactly that factor, but model predictions move only part of the way and accuracy remains concentrated near the familiar scale of the depicted objects. Across eight vision-language models, this under-response persists over four orders of magnitude. The same models recover the correct closed-form scaling laws when the identical physics is asked in a scale-free form, indicating that the main deficit lies in metric grounding rather than physical mechanism knowledge. We use this exact scaling relation as supervision without requiring metric annotations. Under a common rescaling of the supplied world-space quantities, the correct metric answer must change by the same factor. EquiSD exploits this constraint by projecting a model's own prediction onto the scale-equivariant family and fine-tuning the model on the resulting targets. It requires no ground-truth answers and only one model query per training video. On held-out simulated videos, EquiSD increases a 3B model's median response slope from 0.66 to 0.94 and improves mean relative accuracy by 9.2 points across scales. The learned relation generalizes to unseen world scales and transfers without adaptation to real QuantiPhy videos, where accuracy increases by 6.4 points. These results show that an exact physical symmetry can provide label-free supervision for improving metric grounding in vision-language models.
Counterfactual analysis is widely used to study evidence use in vision-language models, but its diagnostic value is limited on well-posed tasks: when several cues independently support the same answer, removing one may not change the prediction. We propose monocular metric object-size estimation as an ill-posed diagnostic setting for evidence selection: because physical size cannot be determined from a single uncalibrated image, models must rely on imperfect cues category priors, target appearance, local context, apparent image size, and scene geometry. We assemble Metric VQA (10,813 dimension queries from Objectron and 331 tape-measured in-the-wild scenes) and evaluate 12 open-weight VLMs (3--397,B parameters) with counterfactual analysis decomposing six visual and language evidence channels. Even the largest VLMs tested (Qwen3-VL-235B, Qwen3.5-397B, InternVL3.5-241B) trail a text-only frontier LLM on the in-the-wild split. The diagnostic analysis shows: target identity is the most load-bearing cue, target pixels and local context help only some models, apparent size shifts predictions without a directional readout, and global scene geometry is largely unused. We analyze LoRA fine-tuning as an actionable intervention specific to metric estimation: while the task is learnable, the models do not learn to leverage scene geometry.
A model first sees an image from one physical measurement experiment, such as how far a block coasted, and must answer a question about a new trial, such as whether the block will pass a target after a fixed push. The initial experiment may provide enough information to answer, or the model may need another measurement, such as the object's mass, friction, restitution, or spring stiffness. We study whether vision language models can decide when to answer immediately and, when more evidence is needed, which experiment to perform. Current physical reasoning benchmarks usually evaluate only the final answer, so they do not directly measure this decision-making ability. We introduce a controlled evaluation where each problem provides one measurement image and four possible physical worlds created by combining two possible masses and two possible values of another relevant property. The model must either stop and answer or select the cheapest additional experiment that can resolve the question. We construct matched problem pairs where changing either the observed measurement or the question changes the optimal action. Since all possible worlds and experiment costs are known, we can explicitly determine the optimal choice. Across six open models and 144 physical parameter sets, direct responses repeat the same action for 95.1% to 100% of image pairs even when the correct action changes. Brief reasoning improves action switching, but the best model makes both decisions correctly for only 5.9% of image pairs. Additional analysis reveals failures in measurement interpretation, physical reasoning, and response formatting. By evaluating evidence selection separately from final answers, our benchmark reveals limitations in physical reasoning that conventional answer accuracy can overlook.
Sourajit Saha, Shubhashis Roy Dipta, Nobin Sarwar +4
Reliable physical reasoning from video requires understanding how objects move, interact, and respond to interventions. Existing vision-language models (VLMs) often struggle to interpret these dynamics and reason reliably about future and counterfactual outcomes. We introduce PhysMind, a training-free agentic framework that constructs one reusable, question-agnostic executable world per video. PhysMind recovers a temporally consistent dynamic scene through object segmentation, mesh reconstruction, and 6D pose tracking, then fits analytic continuous-time dynamics and latent physical parameters without unrolling a time-stepped simulator. Given a question, it inspects, continues, or edits the world and answers from the resulting trajectories and interactions. Relative to direct chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with the same VLM, PhysMind improves accuracy by 38.23 points on CLEVRER and 8.08 points on Physion++. On counterfactual questions, it exceeds the strongest evaluated VLM baseline, GPT-5.5, by 19.25 points.