Frozen multimodal large language models (MLLMs) now solve standard referring expression comprehension with a single prompted call, yet on adversarial benchmarks with same-category distractors and negation, even the largest models are confidently wrong, and resampling repeats the error. Models built from different data and architectures rarely fall for the same confounder, so their agreement is a strong label-free signal of the correct target. We present FORUM, a training-free test-time fusion of frozen MLLMs guided by two fixed geometric rules: agreement-based selection keeps the region supported by the most distinct models, and medoid localization returns an actual member box instead of a coordinate average, so one loose prediction cannot shift the answer. Fusing three open MLLMs, FORUM surpasses the 397B-parameter published reference by a relative 5% in mean accuracy on the adversarial Ref-Adv-s benchmark, and a plain averaging ensemble by 15%. The gains transfer to standard RefCOCO+, and a balanced lineup with no dominant member still surpasses the 397B model by 5%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: FORUM fuses three different frozen MLLMs at test time. A single giant MLLM can confidently lock onto a look-alike distractor, and a plain ensemble that averages the predicted boxes drifts off-target. FORUM keeps the region where different frozen models agree and returns an actual member box, the medoid .
Figure 2: Agreement-based test-time fusion of heterogeneous MLLMs. The image I and expression e are sent to the three frozen MLLMs of the dominant lineup, each emitting one primary box; for the query ( “…its color is not silver” ), Nemotron is trapped on the silver car while Qwen3.6 and Gemma-4 agree on the correct one. Stage A clusters the boxes by IoU and keeps the region supported by the most distinct models ( ✓ ), discarding the outlier ( × ). Stage B outputs the medoid , an actual member box, rather than a synthetic average that a loose box could drag off-target.
System
Mean ↑
@0.5 ↑
@0.75 ↑
@0.9 ↑
Specialist
Grounding DINO [ 19 ]
15.9
19.7
17.2
10.7
DeRIS-B [ 7 ]
21.1
28.3
22.2
12.8
MLLMs
Nemotron-Omni-30B
21.5
51.5
9.5
3.6
GLM-4.6V
48.3
60.0
51.4
33.5
Table 1: Ref-Adv-s results (mean of Acc@{0.5, 0.75, 0.9}), sorted by mean within each group; best per column in bold. Fusion rows use the dominant lineup; the full comparison including the balanced lineup is in Appendix E.
System
Ref-Adv-s ↑
R+ val ↑
R+ testA ↑
R+ testB ↑
Nemotron (single)
21.5
31.9
34.0
27.2
Plain ensemble
48.2
60.8
64.3
55.7
Gemma-4 (single)
49.4
61.8
59.2
58.8
Qwen3.6 (single)
52.2
75.5
80.4
67.5
Ours
55.4
76.4
80.3
69.2
Table 2: Transfer across REC splits with the dominant lineup (mean of Acc@{0.5, 0.75, 0.9}); R+ denotes RefCOCO+. Best per column in bold.
Figure 3: Successful Ref-Adv-s examples.
Figure 4: Failure modes on Ref-Adv-s.
Figure 5: Scaling the number of fused small ( ≤ 10B) models on Ref-Adv-s: mean accuracy averaged over all (K8) size- K subsets of an eight-model pool rises monotonically with K .
Negation
Distractors
System
yes
no
2–3
4–6
≥ 7
(457)
(685)
(698)
(315)
(129)
Qwen3.6 (single)
57.5
48.7
50.9
54.5
54.3
Plain ensemble
52.7
45.3
48.9
47.7
45.5
Ours
61.2
51.5
55.2
56.3
54.5
Table 3: Ref-Adv-s mean accuracy ( ↑ ) by facet, dominant lineup ( n in parentheses). Best per column in bold.
Final box rule
Mean ↑
@0.5 ↑
@0.75 ↑
@0.9 ↑
Dominant lineup
Coordinate average (plain ensemble)
48.2
70.2
57.7
16.7
Inverse-variance weighted
55.0
70.7
60.7
33.5
Coordinate-wise median
55.5
70.3
59.5
36.7
Medoid (Ours)
55.4
69.8
59.2
37.2
Balanced lineup
Table 4: Localization ablation on Ref-Adv-s (same agreement-selected clusters) for both lineups. Only the medoid is an actual member prediction; best per column and band in bold.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
τ
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Ref-Adv-s (dominant) ↑
55.3
55.1
55.4
55.4
55.0
Ref-Adv-s (balanced) ↑
55.3
55.4
55.3
55.4
55.4
RefCOCO+ testB (dominant) ↑
68.6
68.7
69.2
69.1
68.2
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity to the IoU clustering threshold τ (Ours mean accuracy).
Agreement ≥2 models
Agreement <2
Confident ( s≥7 samples)
85.0 (579)
33.3 (39)
Not confident
55.8 (360)
29.3 (92)
Appendix
Table 6: Ref-Adv-s accuracy (%) by self-consistency and cross-model agreement (balanced lineup, Qwen3.5-27B primary box; n in parentheses).
Members
Accuracy
Qwen3.5-27B
Gemma-4
GLM-4.6V
Mean ↑
@0.5 ↑
@0.75 ↑
@0.9 ↑
✓
49.9
64.3
52.4
32.9
✓
49.4
64.7
53.5
30.0
✓
48.3
60.0
51.4
33.5
✓
✓
53.2
66.3
57.7
35.5
✓
✓
51.2
63.7
54.4
35.4
Appendix
Table 7: Member subsets of the balanced lineup on Ref-Adv-s; ✓ marks the members in each lineup. Best per column in bold.
System
Mean ↑
@0.5 ↑
@0.75 ↑
@0.9 ↑
Specialist
Grounding DINO
15.9
19.7
17.2
10.7
DeRIS-B
21.1
28.3
22.2
12.8
MLLMs
Nemotron-Omni-30B
21.5
51.5
9.5
3.6
Youtu-VL
35.0
48.5
38.1
18.5
Appendix
Table 8: Full Ref-Adv-s comparison (mean of Acc@{0.5, 0.75, 0.9}), sorted by mean within each group; best per column in bold.
Figure 6: Additional successful Ref-Adv-s examples (companion to Fig. 3 in the main paper).
Figure 7: Additional failure modes on Ref-Adv-s (companion to Fig. 4 in the main paper).
Lineup
Mean ↑
@0.5 ↑
@0.75 ↑
@0.9 ↑
corr. ↓
Budget (3 × Qwen3.5-27B)
50.4
65.6
53.2
32.2
—
Same-family (Qwen 9B/27B/35B)
52.5
67.1
55.3
35.3
0.62
Cross-family (Ours)
54.6
68.9
58.9
36.0
0.47
Appendix
Table 9: Cross-family controls on Ref-Adv-s ( n=1,142 , τ=0.5 , one primary box per member). “corr.” is the mean pairwise error correlation among members. Best per column in bold.
System
Mean ↑
TFLOPs ↓
Ckpt ↓
1 GPU ↓
Node ↓
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B-FP8
52.6 / 53.7
19.6
378.3
— †
1.3
FORUM (dominant)
55.4
29.7
67.0
2.9
1.4
FORUM (balanced)
55.3
62.2
58.3
5.9
3.5
Appendix
Table 10: Inference cost on one 8 × H100 80 GB node (vLLM). TFLOPs per instance; largest checkpoint (GiB; peaks are vLLM preallocation); latency (s) on one GPU and on the node (397B at TP = 8, FORUM one GPU per member). The 397B mean is published / rerun through our pipeline. † 378 GiB exceeds one GPU.
As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can describe increasingly complex visual scenes, token-level grounding becomes crucial. Yet, when an MLLM generates "the yellow banana on the left", established grounding approaches focus on what is in the image ("banana"), overlooking tokens that help describe which instance is meant ("yellow", "left"). In this work, we ask whether frozen MLLM representations contain decodable grounding information about the referred instance across generated tokens, extending to modifiers such as attributes, spatial expressions, and relational/action terms. To address this question, we introduce OTTER, a lightweight supervised probe over frozen MLLM representations that uses Optimal Transport (OT) to align generated tokens with visual regions and produce compact grounding maps. Our results show that (i) instance-discriminative visual information can be decoded from modifier tokens, with the clearest evidence for spatial terms, but (ii) is not confined to them, as contextualized object nouns also carry referential information; (iii) the recovered grounding remains informative under context perturbations, while selected regions remain relevant to generation; and (iv) the learned OT-based grounding extends beyond the controlled setting to free generation and cross-dataset transfer.
Barbara Toniella Corradini, Caterina Gallegati, Ludovica Genovese +1
Referring Expression Comprehension (REC) links language to region level visual perception. Standard benchmarks (RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, RefCOCOg) have progressed rapidly with multimodal LLMs but remain weak tests of visual reasoning and grounding: (i) many expressions are very short, leaving little reasoning demand; (ii) images often contain few distractors, making the target easy to find; and (iii) redundant descriptors enable shortcut solutions that bypass genuine text understanding and visual reasoning. We introduce Ref-Adv, a modern REC benchmark that suppresses shortcuts by pairing linguistically nontrivial expressions with only the information necessary to uniquely identify the target. The dataset contains referring expressions on real images, curated with hard distractors and annotated with reasoning facets including negation. We conduct comprehensive ablations (word order perturbations and descriptor deletion sufficiency) to show that solving Ref-Adv requires reasoning beyond simple cues, and we evaluate a broad suite of contemporary multimodal LLMs on Ref-Adv. Despite strong results on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg, models drop markedly on Ref-Adv, revealing reliance on shortcuts and gaps in visual reasoning and grounding. We provide an in depth failure analysis and aim for Ref-Adv to guide future work on visual reasoning and grounding in MLLMs.
Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.