Knowing What Not to Answer: Selective Non-Compliance in Vision-Language Models

The ability of vision-language models (VLMs) to abstain from unanswerable questions is as important as their ability to answer answerable ones accurately. Recently, several benchmarks have emerged to evaluate and improve VLM abstention, but they have substantial limitations. First, samples often contain shortcut cues in images or questions that reveal answerability, while an explicit "unanswerable" option further prevents accurate assessment of spontaneous abstention. Second, as training data, they generally provide only binary labels without fine-grained explanations for deeper supervision. To address these limitations, we introduce Visual Answerability Diagnosis with Rationales (VAD-R), a benchmark constructed through a two-stage pipeline of shortcut filtering and quality verification to prevent answerability leakage. Each example is annotated with step-by-step rationales and causal evidence-gap labels. Evaluation of state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs on VAD-R reveals limited spontaneous abstention, with average recall rates of only 11.4% and 16.3%, respectively. Probing analyses show that hidden-state representations in certain layers can effectively distinguish answerability, yet this distinction fails to manifest in final responses. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Rep2Act, a representation-to-action alignment method that translates latent answerability awareness into explicit abstention decisions. Rep2Act improves action accuracy on VAD-R from 56.67% to 86.33% for Qwen2.5-VL-3B and from 59.33% to 88.67% for Qwen2.5-VL-7B. On the out-of-distribution TUBench, Rep2Act achieves an average F1 score of 53.3% with only a 3B model, surpassing the closed-source GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o by 16.2% and 1.1%, respectively.

We evaluate the performance of Vision Language Models in Visual Question Answering (VQA) when questions violate Grice's maxims. To do this, we use VLMs to generate question modifiers that add non-essential, ambiguous or false information and show that in the presence of such violations, the VLMs that we evaluate (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Llava) show diminished performance. Further, we empirically show the difference between how humans reason pragmatically compared to VLMs, and the difference in VLM reasoning when it resolves violations that are human-induced compared to those that are AI-generated. Finally, we show that human cognitive effort (measured through time-on-task in an experiment) is lower for resolving VLM-induced violations, but VLMs themselves perform less accurately in such cases.

Many medical conditions require clinical assessment of symptoms, history, and functioning rather than judgments from appearance. We study whether vision-language models (VLMs) abstain from facial attribution of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). To support this study, we construct PARITY (Paired Assessment with Reused Identity), a demographically balanced dataset for testing whether changing facial expressions alters diagnostic judgments, while holding identity and other visual factors as constant as possible. Our comprehensive evaluation of 27 open- and closed-weight models reveals inconsistent abstention across expressions, conditions, and task formats. Models turn facial expressions into unsupported medical judgments: this behavior is widespread among open-weight VLMs and extends to safety-trained frontier models that abstain on individual portraits yet make diagnostic judgments when comparing portraits of the same identity. Safeguard checks reveal further gaps: clinical instructions do not consistently prevent these judgments, and a guardrail model rarely flags paired requests as unsafe. Semantic analysis further shows that most baseline open-model refusals fail to explain both the insufficiency of facial evidence and the need for clinical assessment. Unsupported judgments and seemingly authoritative explanations can cause distress, reinforce stigma, and offer false reassurance, underscoring the need for stronger safety measures in model training and deployment.