cs.LGSep 7, 2026

I Don't Miss You, but I Do: Self-Explanation Faithfulness of Modality Missingness in Vision-Language Models

Authors: Aydin Javadov, Daniel Schoess, Florian von Wangenheim

Abstract

Vision-language models are increasingly used in settings where some input modalities may be unavailable, yet we know little about whether they can faithfully explain how such missing information affects their own predictions. We introduce an interventional protocol for evaluating self-explanations of modality dynamics: models state what each modality alone would support, whether restoring a missing modality would change their answer, and whether the available evidence is sufficient; we then execute the corresponding modality intervention and compare these claims with the model's realized behavior. We evaluate eight open-weight VLMs from two model families across four tasks spanning complementary and isomorphic text-image settings and a multi-view driving setting. We find a systematic tendency to overstate the sufficiency of available modality evidence. Models substantially underestimate the effect of restoring missing modalities: task-level median predicted change rates are at most 8.8%, while the corresponding executed change rates reach 72.1%, with underprediction in 62 of 64 model-task-condition settings. Insufficiency claims are rare, but precise when produced: restoring the modality changes the answer in a median of 78-100% of flagged cases. Retrospective self-explanations show the same tendency: on complementary data, models over-credit single-modality sufficiency; on isomorphic data, they over-credit single representation sufficiency relative to their executed behavior. Together, these results show that VLMs systematically mischaracterize how their predictions depend on available and missing modality evidence, motivating executable interventions as a behavioral ground truth for evaluating multimodal self-explanations.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 21, 2026cs.AI

Measuring Cross-Modal Synergy: A Benchmark for VLM Explainability

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) map complex visual inputs to semantic spaces, but interpreting the cross-modal reasoning of VLMs currently relies on post-hoc explainers evaluated via unimodal perturbation metrics. We expose a limitation in this paradigm: because multimodal datasets contain language priors and modality biases, VLMs frequently exhibit cross-modal redundancy, allowing them to answer visual queries using text alone. Consequently, unimodal metrics penalize faithful explainers, triggering an evaluation collapse where visual and textual rankings fundamentally contradict each other. %(Kendall's τ=−0.06τ= -0.06). To resolve this, we introduce Synergistic Faithfulness (Fsyn\mathcal{F}_{syn}), a scalable metric rooted in the Shapley Interaction Index that strictly isolates the joint Harsanyi dividend between modalities, serving as a highly accurate surrogate (ρ=0.92ρ= 0.92) while achieving a 24×24\times computational speedup. Evaluating 8 distinct XAI methods across 3 VLM architectures and 3 benchmark datasets, reveals that explainers proposed for VLMs heavily over-index on visual salience and significantly underperform adapted attention-based methods in capturing true cross-modal synergy. By decoupling visual plausibility from cross-modal faithfulness, this work provides a rigorous evaluation framework required to safely audit VLM reasoning in high-stakes deployments.
Joël Roman Ky, Salah Ghamizi, Maxime Cordy
Cross-Modal LearningUnimodal RepresentationsSaliency
AskPDF
Sep 1, 2026cs.CV

The Visual Insensitivity Gap: Diagnosing When Vision-Language Models Fail to Use Visual Evidence

Vision-language models are evaluated by aggregate accuracy on multimodal benchmarks, a practice that implicitly assumes the model uses its visual input. We show this assumption fails on 40%--97% of samples across six VLMs and three perceptual benchmarks: blurring the question-relevant visual region leaves the next-token distribution nearly unchanged. We name this phenomenon the Visual Insensitivity Gap and quantify it with a per-sample Visual Sensitivity Index (VSI). The gap is a property of samples, not of models: VSI ranks correlate across models (grand-mean Spearman rho=+0.40, permutation p<10^-3), so the same samples are flagged insensitive by VLMs sharing no architectural detail beyond a contrastively pretrained vision tower. The mechanism is concrete: on the insensitive samples, a linear probe on each model's own vision tower distinguishes perturbed from clean images at 0.72--0.79 accuracy, yet the model's argmax token changes on only 2%--11% of the same samples, an encoder--LLM gap above 0.65 on every model. Mapping VSI's diagnostic utility cell by cell surfaces a strong regime (multi-choice reasoning on capable VLMs: AUROC=0.85--0.87) and a weak regime (well-calibrated factuality, where softmax confidence already leads). VSI is not a universal best abstention signal; it is a sample-intrinsic indicator of vision-ignoring failure, best used as a conditional ensemble component.
Genpei Zhang
Large Vision Language ModelsVisual PerceptionMultimodal Benchmarks
AskPDF
Apr 16, 2026cs.CL

Reasoning Dynamics and the Limits of Monitoring Modality Reliance in Vision-Language Models

Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.
Danae Sánchez Villegas, Samuel Lewis-Lim, Nikolaos Aletras +1
Large Vision Language ModelsLarge Reasoning ModelsVisual EvidenceInput ModalityChain-of-Thought Reasoning
AskPDF