What Looks Like a Capability Limit in Vision-Language Models Is a Readout Limit

Alfredo F. Frontera Del Valle

cs.CVSep 23, 2026

What Looks Like a Capability Limit in Vision-Language Models Is a Readout Limit

Authors: Alfredo F. Frontera Del Valle

Abstract

Benchmarks for vision-language models offer their answer choices in some convention: a letter, a color name, a pixel coordinate. That convention is treated as neutral. We find it is not, and that the limits a benchmark reports can belong to the readout rather than to the model. On 200 COCO photographs, Qwen3-VL-4B picks the correct one of nine locations for a named object 68.5% of the time when the locations are given in English and 20.0% when the same locations are given as pixel coordinates. Chance is 11.1%. The cost arises when the answer options are coordinates; giving the model a coordinate in the question instead costs 3.5 points and is not significant. The gap holds on a 4x4 grid, under 8-bit rather than 4-bit quantization, and in every slice by object size, boundary distance and category. It also decides which model wins. Two models that tie under English names differ by 39 points in one coordinate system and by 54 in the other, in opposite directions. On the color task, three of the four open models capable of the task show the penalty; on photographs, two of three open models do, and so does Gemini, at 11.1 points on parseable answers (p = 1e-4). GPT-4o does not. To ask whether a model reads a coordinate at all, we attach the wrong name to each one and record which the model follows. Color options written as hue angles are followed below chance; a normalized pixel convention is followed at four times chance. This tells apart conventions a model can use from ones it cannot, though it did not predict accuracy on two untried conventions. Five models also name the same color wheel five different ways, so a fixed answer vocabulary is not neutral across models either. Five times during this work we measured a capable model as incapable because our scorer and the model disagreed about what an answer looks like. We report each case. They are the phenomenon in miniature.

Explore similar work

Jun 23, 2025cs.IR

Can Argus Judge Them All? Comparing VLMs Across Domains

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used in industry VLM applications such as retrieval systems, content generation platforms, and decision-support workflows, where model selection is commonly guided by benchmark rankings. These rankings are largely determined by retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks; however, models with similar task performance often show substantially different behavior across datasets. This creates a Capability-Reliability Gap between benchmark performance and observed model stability. We present ARGUS-EVAL, a capability-reliability-oriented evaluation framework for VLMs that characterizes model behavior through Benchmark Capability P(M), Cross-Dataset Consistency CDC(M), Robustness Retention RR(M), and Efficiency E(M). We evaluate CLIP, BLIP, LXMERT, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen-2.5VL-3B-Instruct across retrieval, captioning, and reasoning downstream tasks. The results reveal notable differences between capability-oriented and reliability-oriented rankings. Qwen-2.5VL-3BInstruct achieves the strongest overall capability (R@1 = 82.7%, BLEU-4 = 47.2%, CIDEr = 141.6, CDC = 0.91), whereas CLIP records the lowest latency (31 ms) and memory footprint (0.9 GB).

Harsh Joshi, Gautam Siddharth Kashyap, Rafiq Ali +5

Code Evaluation

Ask PDF

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

Visual Access Boundaries in Vision-Language Model Reasoning

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a test-time scaling strategy for Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but it remains unclear what is extended when VLMs generate longer reasoning traces. We ask whether CoT requires continued access to image tokens, or whether it mainly operates over visual information already made available earlier in the forward pass. We introduce Visual Access Sweep, a causal intervention that masks attention from generated-token queries to image-token keys along layer depth and generation time, and define the Visual Access Boundary (VAB) as the minimal access region that preserves task accuracy. Across six model configurations from Qwen2.5-VL and InternVL3, both no-CoT direct answering and CoT prompting exhibit finite VABs. In Qwen2.5-VL-32B and InternVL3 at 14B and 38B scales, when CoT is evaluated against the no-CoT full-access target, its VAB layer differs from the no-CoT boundary by at most two layers, despite substantially longer generations. This suggests that CoT does not primarily improve performance by prolonging direct image-token access throughout the reasoning trace, but by extending language-side computation over image-derived hidden-state information. We further show that CoT gains are constrained by perceptual readout. CoT helps when the queried visual attribute can be reliably read out by the model, but not when that readout is unreliable. A symbolic-attribute oracle shows that CoT can improve counting once ground-truth attributes are supplied as text, while a single-object probe-vs-decode check shows that hard attributes can be linearly recoverable from hidden states yet difficult for the model itself to output. Together, these analyses place the bottleneck at readout rather than counting.

Hiroto Osaka, Shohei Taniguchi, Gouki Minegishi +3

Large Vision Language Models Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Boundaries

Ask PDF

Jun 9, 2026cs.CL

Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed where answers must follow from what is in the image, yet they often answer from textual priors, the question's phrasing together with memorized world knowledge, rather than from the image itself, which inflates benchmark scores and yields confident but ungrounded answers. Existing benchmarks rarely isolate this behavior, since each image is usually paired with a single fixed question. To measure the reliance, we build a 540-image benchmark across six reasoning categories and generate four question variants over the same images, so that phrasing rather than image content is the controlled variable. The hardest variant is written directly from the image to minimize text leakage. We benchmark eleven VLMs spanning small open-weight models to large closed-source systems: every model degrades on the hardest variant, and open models fall furthest. Our central diagnostic is a no-image ablation, which collapses the open-weight models to their text-only floor (1 to 9 percent). Three further analyses, LLM-rated difficulty, low base-to-final textual similarity, and human re-annotation, corroborate genuine image-dependence. In-context exemplars that match how a variant was built recover the most accuracy, and GRPO post-training of a small VLM yields consistent gains across all four variants that transfer to a held-out out-of-distribution set. Textual-prior reliance is measurable and partly trainable away.

Pratham Singla, Shivank Garg, Vihan Singh +1

Prior Knowledge

Ask PDF