When Do Frozen VLMs Respond to Image-Free Object-Token Edits? An Answer-Key-Free Protocol and What It Reveals
Authors: Wonbin Son, Gyumun Choi, Junil Seo, Seungmin Rho, Mi Young Lee, Hyungjoon Kim
Abstract
Answering what-if queries about a scene with a VLM usually means injecting the assumption as text or repainting the scene with a generative model. We instead move the edit to the representation level, before the model input. The image is abstracted into a set of object-level tokens, and the original image never enters the VLM. This design rests on an open question: when do frozen VLMs actually respond to such token edits? We introduce an answer-key-free protocol: no post-edit answer is annotated. It scores edits whose answers are logically determined, and audits itself by reversing each scoreable choice. The protocol reveals three structures. The response is not free: explicit edit teaching, not ordinary VQA training, produces it in dense scenes and multiplies it in sparse ones, on all three operations. Once on, it is governed by token cleanliness and density, with deployable detector+segmenter tokens competitive with the oracle and outperforming it on VRSBench. And reading is a separable axis: the image-free token route preserves 92-96% of a matched patch-token baseline's free-text VQA, and the answers measurably depend on the tokens. The response, cleanliness, and reading structures are sign-preserved across two remote-sensing datasets (iSAID, VRSBench) and three frozen LM backbones. We release the probe generator, records, judge logs, and code.
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) integrate visual perception with language generation, enabling responses that span image understanding and complex reasoning. However, LVLMs do not just inherit the text-level hallucinations; they also hallucinate against the image, producing fluent responses ungrounded in what they see. This makes LVLM response scoring inherently harder, and our diagnostics show that existing confidence-based metrics adopted from LLMs are insufficient for LVLMs. Specifically, removing the input image barely changes confidence-based selection, suggesting that output-space confidence primarily captures textual plausibility rather than agreement with the image. To address this gap, we propose LookBack, a training-free LVLM response scoring method that augments token likelihood with visual lookback score, a lightweight measure of how strongly each response token refers to image tokens. Across four benchmarks and three models, LookBack consistently improves Best-of-N selection over existing baselines with negligible additional overhead.
Where should the question go in a vision-language model (VLM) prompt: before the image or after it? Intuition says before: knowing what is asked should tell the model where to look. Yet across visual question answering benchmarks, question-first prompting consistently underperforms the image-first ordering recommended for frontier VLMs, a phenomenon we term the question-first paradox. We trace this paradox to a conflict between two stages of VLM computation. Logit-lens and attention probes show that question-first prompting steers perception, shifting image patch representations toward question-relevant concepts. But downstream, stranded behind hundreds of image tokens, the question is barely attended by the answer token, which instead commits to image-driven, often wrong answers. Causal attention knockout confirms that the answer reads the question only when it follows the image. This diagnosis yields a training-free fix: question echoing, restating the question on both sides of the image so one copy steers perception while the other is available at answer time. A similar division of labor appears in a fifty-year-old finding on human 'adjunct questions', where repeating a question before and after a passage improves comprehension. Echoing the image as well brings further gains by restoring the whole-image view otherwise lost by a causal decoder. The paradox holds across five open VLMs, costing up to 17.5 group-accuracy points. Echoed prompts recover most of the gap and, on NaturalBench and Winoground, surpass the best single-pass ordering by up to 19 group-accuracy points on Winoground, with no training, fine-tuning, or architecture change. The paradox reveals a tension between steering what a model sees and preserving access to what it was asked; echoing resolves this through prompt design. Project Page: https://rakshanda-cmu.github.io/ask-twice-look-twice/
Rakshanda Hassan Abhinandan, John Galeotti, Deva Ramanan +1
Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to revise their reasoning when visual evidence changes. Failures to do so are often attributed to insufficient visual attention or contextual inertia, leaving unclear what models reuse instead of recomputing from the current image. We show that evidence-bearing reasoning in a prior chain of thought (CoT) can form a textual shortcut that competes behaviorally with visual recomputation. Across 16 VLMs, a matched counterfactual analysis identifies evidence-bearing content as the most robust carrier of prior-CoT influence. Removing this evidence-bearing content shifts answer preference more than removing length-matched non-evidence context or the final-answer span, with prior control weakening progressively as more stale evidence is removed. Reordering this evidence also weakens prior control, showing that its organization modulates shortcut strength. Beyond the immediate answer, the shortcut can retain residual influence after answer correction: weakening current-image support shifts preference back toward the prior answer, while repeated prior answers and reused premises arise mainly when the shortcut remains active. To limit this influence, we introduce Fresh-State Attention Firewall (FSAF), a training-free intervention that isolates fresh computation from the prior CoT. Across five VLMs, FSAF raises visual update rate from 35.28% to 53.61% and reduces prior-answer rate from 39.22% to 3.67%. Reliable VLM self-reflection therefore requires more than looking again: fresh visual recomputation must be protected from stale textual reuse.