Vision-language models (VLMs) rely on storing and transferring appropriate information across their sub-components. Verifying that the VLMs exhibit desired behaviours, while avoiding harmful ones, is central to their reliable deployment. Yet, methods that identify VLM behaviours remain scarce. We present DiaVLo, a diagnostic framework that leverages human curation and VLMs' generation capabilities to construct specifications of desired and observed VLM behaviours, surfacing potential misalignments. Beyond this, DiaVLo also provides causal estimates to identify the most influential concepts steering VLM behaviours. We evaluate DiaVLo on several open-source VLMs under both classification and generation conditions. Our experiments show that DiaVLo produces behaviour labels that correlate with model performance and provide context for measured performance. DiaVLo surfaced behaviours that are clearly aligned and misaligned, alongside patterns in how VLMs perceive, organise, and prioritise concepts.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: With DiaVLo , we frame VLM diagnosis as an addition to benchmarking, enabling the definition and verification of observed model behaviours with respect to specifications of desired behaviours.
Figure 2: In DiaVLo , two parallel processes enable the classification of VLM behaviours. (Top) Scene graph generation and human curation produce SK s that are relevant for the visual and language inputs. (Bottom) VLMs provide RK s by verbalising rationales for their responses. We also compute concept-level causal estimates for deeper insights. (Middle) Finally, DiaVLo classifies model behaviours based on lexical and semantic matching.
LLaVa-Bench
MMBench
SEED-Bench 2
VQA v2
Initial
580 (-)
1442 (-)
1783 (-)
1798 (-)
Validation
300 (51.7%)
839 (58.2%)
1042 (58.4%)
1051 (58.5%)
Expansion
516 (43.4%)
1024 (42.1%)
1233 (38.7%)
1302 (46.0%)
Expert
546 (11.0%)
1094 (5.9%)
1301 (8.4%)
1391 (7.8%)
M SK (IQR)
9 (5.75, 11)
7 (5, 10.5)
9 (5, 12)
8.5 (6,12)
Table 1: SK s collected and percentages of relevant SK s (Validation), of new SK s (Expansion), or of expert edits (including median (M SK ) and inter-quartile range (IQR)).
LLaVa-Bench
MMBench
SEED-Bench 2
VQA v2
N s (N RK )
M RK (IQR)
N s (N RK )
M RK (IQR)
N s (N RK )
M RK (IQR)
N s (N RK )
M RK (IQR)
InternVL2
58 (565)
10 (7, 12)
139 (1287)
9 (7, 11)
150 (1254)
8 (6, 10)
150 (1014)
7 (4, 9)
LLaVa-1.6
44 (279)
7 (3, 8.25)
133 (823)
6 (4, 8)
129 (853)
6 (4, 10)
142 (939)
6 (4, 9)
Qwen2.5-VL
56 (504)
9 (6, 12)
139 (601)
4 (3, 5)
150 (554)
3 (2, 4)
150 (336)
2 (2, 2)
ShareGPT4V
49 (279)
5 (3, 8)
135 (645)
4 (2, 7)
109 (241)
1 (1, 2)
21 (46)
1 (1, 1)
Table 2: RK statistics shown across models and datasets: raw number of RK extracted (N), median (M), and inter-quartile range (IQR). We highlight model-dataset pairs based on the number of RK successfully extracted: >90% in green, 70−90% in yellow, and <70% in red. We include results from ShareGPT4V on VQA v2 for transparency.
Figure 3: Behaviour thresholds’ sensitivity to τa (top) and τe (bottom). τd is set afterwards, based on τe . Additional visualisations are included in subsection E.2 .
Figure 4: Identified Model Behaviours.
VLM
LLaVa-Bench
MMBench
SEED-Bench 2
VQA v2
A
MI
A
MI
A
MI
A
MI
InternVL2
0.673
3.367
0.796
3.200
0.787
0.379
0.667
0.476
LLaVa-1.6
0.657
2.389
0.792
2.512
0.667
0.438
0.585
0.481
Qwen2.5-VL
0.670
3.008
0.743
1.561
0.833
0.188
0.700
0.147
ShareGPT4V
0.687
2.058
0.705
2.116
0.661
0.292
0.810
0.558 †
Table 3: Measured accuracy (A) vs Mutual Information MI (A,Sc) . † : Very small sample size: see Table 2 .
Figure 5: Example distributions of causal effects. Full comparisons for all VLMs and dataset combinations can be found in subsection E.6 .
Appendix figures & tables29 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Verification Task
Figure 7: Form to edit triple data with the auto-complete suggestions visible (highlighted).
Figure 8: Verification Task
Figure 9: Prompt templates for getting model responses. Model-specific changes are underlined .
Figure 10: Prompt templates for generating model rationales. Same for all models.
Figure 11: Prompt templates for structuring VLM rationales. Changes are mostly related to how instructions are organised and their clarity.
Dataset
Jconcepts
Jrelations
LLaVa-Bench
0.81
0.82
MMBench – Image Scene
0.41
0.91
MMBench – Image Topic
0.99
0.90
SEED-Bench 2 – Scene Understanding
0.85
0.88
SEED-Bench 2 – Visual Reasoning
0.99
0.94
VQAv2 – How many people are…
0.47
0.89
Appendix
Table 4: Average Jaccard distance, for each dataset, measured between the sets of unique concepts and relationships obtained with and without USE_VISION enabled.
Dataset
Concept Detected
Relations Detected
w/ USE_VISION
w/o USE_VISION
w/ USE_VISION
w/o USE_VISION
LLaVa-Bench
746
689 ( ↓ 7.64%)
720
720 (-)
MMBench – Image Scene
7905
6393 ( ↓ 19.13%)
7650
7650 (-)
MMBench – Image Topic
1980
179 ( ↓ 90.96%)
1920
1920 (-)
SEED-Bench 2 – Scene Understanding
100903
71883 ( ↓ 28.76%)
94740
94740 (-)
SEED-Bench 2 – Visual Reasoning
10715
1314 ( ↓ 87.74%)
9930
9930 (-)
Appendix
Table 5: IETrans concepts and relationships extracted when the vision signal is used (w/ USE_VISION ) compared to when it is not (w/o USE_VISION ).
Figure 12: Proportions of samples classified as Aligned, Expanded, or Divergent, and dominant behaviour type as τa and τe vary.
Figure 13: Results from τOWLv2 sweep.
Figure 14: Results from τnms sweep.
VLM
Dataset
Initial RK
Exact Matching
OWLv2 Matches
Semantic Fallback
Matched
Not Matched
InternVL2
LLaVa-Bench
605
0
385
220
605
0
MMBench
1341
3
1000
338
1341
0
SEED-Bench 2
1388
3
1030
355
1388
0
VQA v2
1186
15
1009
162
1186
0
LLaVa-1.6
LLaVa-Bench
421
0
235
186
421
0
MMBench
1255
39
828
388
1255
0
Appendix
Table 6: Intermediate RK - SK matching counts and percentages.
Model
LLaVa-Bench
MMBench
SEED-Bench 2
VQA v2
A
MI
A
MI
A
MI
A
MI
InternVL2
0.673
3.367 [3.158, 3.589]
0.796
3.200 [3.053, 3.350]
0.787
0.379 [0.325, 0.437]
0.667
0.476 [0.433, 0.526]
LLaVa-1.6
0.657
2.389 [2.052, 2.711]
0.792
2.512 [2.333, 2.699]
0.667
0.438 [0.385, 0.497]
0.585
0.481 [0.437, 0.531]
Qwen2.5-VL
0.670
3.008 [2.764, 3.270]
0.743
1.561 [1.331, 1.792]
0.833
0.188 [0.115, 0.275]
0.700
0.147 [0.082, 0.230]
ShareGPT4V
0.687
2.058 [1.737, 2.405]
0.705
2.116 [1.932, 2.318]
0.661
0.292 [0.198, 0.404]
0.810
0.558 [0.139, 1.074]
Appendix
Table 7: VLMs accuracy (A) on the four datasets and Mutual Information (MI) measures between accuracy and model behaviour types. In parentheses, we report the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the MI measures.
Figure 15: Bootstrapped Mutual Information measures InternVL2 ( Chen et al., 2024 ) .
Figure 16: Bootstrapped Mutual Information measures LLaVa-1.6 ( Liu et al., 2024b ) .
Figure 17: Bootstrapped Mutual Information measures Qwen2.5-VL ( Bai et al., 2025 ) .
Figure 18: Bootstrapped Mutual Information measures ShareGPT4V ( Chen et al., 2023 ) .
Figure 19: Example of aligned model behaviour from LLaVa-1.6 on MMBench.
Figure 20: Example of aligned model behaviour from LLaVa-1.6 on VQA v2.
Figure 21: Example of expanded model behaviour from Qwen2.5-VL on LLaVa-Bench.
Figure 22: Example of expanded model behaviour from LLaVa-1.6 on SEED-Bench-2.
Figure 23: Example of expanded model behaviour from LLaVa-1.6 on MMBench.
Figure 24: Example of expanded model behaviour from InternVL2 on VQA v2.
Figure 25: Example of divergent model behaviour from InternVL2 on VQA v2.
Figure 26: Example of divergent model behaviour from ShareGPT4V on LLaVa-Bench.
Figure 27: Model-pairwise distributions of estimated causal effects on LLaVa-Bench ( Liu et al., 2023a ) .
Figure 28: Model-pairwise distributions of estimated causal effects on MMBench ( Liu et al., 2024c ) .
Figure 29: Model-pairwise distributions of estimated causal effects on SEED-Bench-2 ( Li et al., 2024a ) .
Figure 30: Model-pairwise distributions of estimated causal effects on VQA v2 ( Goyal et al., 2017 ) .
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently "hallucinate" - generate plausible yet factually incorrect statements - posing a critical barrier to their trustworthy deployment. In this work, we propose a new paradigm for diagnosing hallucinations, recasting them from static output errors into dynamic pathologies of a model's computational cognition. Our framework is grounded in a normative principle of computational rationality, allowing us to model a VLM's generation as a dynamic cognitive trajectory. We design a suite of information-theoretic probes that project this trajectory onto an interpretable, low-dimensional Cognitive State Space. Our central discovery is a governing principle we term the geometric-information duality: a cognitive trajectory's geometric abnormality within this space is fundamentally equivalent to its high information-theoretic surprisal. Hallucination detection is counts as a geometric anomaly detection problem. Evaluated across diverse settings - from rigorous binary QA (POPE) and comprehensive reasoning (MME) to unconstrained open-ended captioning (MS-COCO) - our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance. Crucially, it operates with high efficiency under weak supervision and remains highly robust even when calibration data is heavily contaminated. This approach enables a causal attribution of failures, mapping observable errors to distinct pathological states: perceptual instability (measured by Perceptual Entropy), logical-causal failure (measured by Inferential Conflict), and decisional ambiguity (measured by Decision Entropy). Ultimately, this opens a path toward building AI systems whose reasoning is transparent, auditable, and diagnosable by design.
Lexiang Xiong, Qi Li, Jingwen Ye +1
National University of Singapore · Monash University
Vision-language models can exhibit visual concept-conditioned divergence: given images containing demographic features, corporate logos, or ideological symbols, some models produce unusually uniform responses that differ from what peer models say about the same input. These behaviors evade text-only audits because visual concepts cannot be isolated or substituted the way text tokens can. We present VISTA (Visual Inconsistency Screening Through Analysis), a black-box cross-model audit that couples semantic entropy with distribution-based divergence to flag model-specific anomalies. In a controlled study, we implant concept-conditioned stances in three VLMs via fine-tuning on small biased datasets and confirm that VISTA detects them. Auditing six VLMs across 19 topics, VISTA surfaces 142 high-suspicion cases (1.2%) and identifies selective refusal as a previously unreported divergence pattern, where models refuse demographic queries at rates varying from 0 to 65% across groups.
Junchi Liao, Jiawen Deng, Fuji Ren
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
When VLMs answer correctly, do they genuinely rely on visual information? We introduce a Tri-Layer Diagnostic Framework with three per-sample metrics: Latent Anomaly Detection, Visual Necessity Score, and Competition Score, which disentangle perception, dependency, and alignment failures. Across 9 VLMs and 9,000 model-sample pairs under counterfactual blind, noise, and conflict interventions, 72.9% of samples exhibit Visual Sycophancy, a Split Beliefs pattern in which internal evidence is preserved yet a hallucinated answer is decoded, while zero samples show Robust Refusal, indicating that current alignment training has eliminated refusal as a decoding outcome. Scaling within the Qwen-VL family, both within- and across-generation, monotonically reduces Language Shortcuts but amplifies Visual Sycophancy, showing that scale and newer post-training alone cannot resolve the grounding problem. Diagnostic scores further enable a training-free selective-prediction strategy yielding up to +9.5 percentage points accuracy at 50% coverage.
Rui Hong, Shuxue Quan
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA · Independent Researcher