Vision-language models (VLMs) are fragile under image corruption. We find that the wording of the question affects VLMs in two opposite ways. Verbose questions make VLMs substantially more robust---e.g., rephrasing "Is there a cat?" into "Please look carefully and answer: is there a cat?". Conversely, VLMs become more fragile under corruption when the question is semantically complex or finer-grained, e.g., "what colour is the cup left of the chair?" instead of "is there a cup?". Both effects stem from question-conditioned cross-modal attention, which induces a spectral filter over image patches: verbose questions broaden its frequency support, while fine-grained questions concentrate it onto fewer visual scales. The model's answer drifts most when this filter and the corruption sit on the same spatial frequencies. We test the filter view on Qwen3-VL and LLaVA-OneVision across GQA and CLEVR; verbose paraphrasing reduces drift variance by 70--81% on the 8B models. The practical recipe---pad the prompt---further yields measurable gains in accuracy, even under image corruption.
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
Visual corruptions can change vision--language model (VLM) behavior in ways that top-1 accuracy does not capture. A model may keep the same answer while losing distributional support, or improve accuracy through unstable wrong-to-correct changes. We introduce Bench-C, a controlled multiple-choice testbed for studying these effects. It selects semantically diverse samples whose predictions respond to corruption, and evaluates them under 19 corruption types and five severity levels. To measure how corruption changes the option distribution, we introduce the Robustness Alignment Score (RAS), which combines confidence-correctness alignment with uncertainty direction. We further separate originally correct samples from originally wrong samples, and track whether changes are temporary or persistent across severity. Experiments across 13 VLMs reveal a counterintuitive pattern: mild corruptions can improve top-1 accuracy while degrading prediction structure. These failures include silent degradation, erroneous overconfidence, and severity-dependent persistence. Bench-C therefore supports robustness evaluation that goes beyond final answers and attributes where reliability changes occur. Code and data are available at https://github.com/xiangjieSui/Bench-C.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) achieve strong cross-modal performance, yet recent evidence suggests they over-rely on textual descriptions while under-utilizing visual evidence -- a phenomenon termed ``text shortcut learning.'' We propose an adversarial evaluation framework that quantifies this cross-modal dependency by measuring accuracy degradation (Drop) when semantically conflicting text is paired with unchanged images. Four adversarial strategies -- shape_swap, color_swap, position_swap, and random_text -- are applied to a controlled geometric-shapes dataset (n=1,000). We compare three configurations: Baseline CLIP (ViT-B/32), LoRA fine-tuning, and LoRA Optimized (integrating Hard Negative Mining, Label Smoothing, layer-wise learning rates, Cosine Restarts, curriculum learning, and data augmentation). The optimized model reduces average Drop from 27.5% to 9.8% (64.4% relative improvement, p<0.001) while maintaining 97% normal accuracy. Attention visualization and embedding-space analysis confirm that the optimized model attends more to visual features and achieves tighter cross-modal alignment.