Evaluating VQA in Vision Language Models using Cooperative Principles

Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer simple visual questions, but often struggle when one question requires several visual judgments. We study this gap with controlled tasks for feature binding, numerosity, spatial relations, and amodal completion, together with a Composite task that combines them. Matched counterfactual image pairs isolate changes in the visual evidence needed to answer. Across four models, direct answers, hidden-state readouts, and state interventions show that the individual judgments can be made without explicit reasoning and that intervening on the corresponding states can affect the answer. During reasoning, the Composite answer becomes decodable from hidden states and usable from shortened traces, often before the model stops on its own. We train a small detector to predict this readiness and stop reasoning at that point. On MMStar and RealWorldQA, this reduces mean reasoning tokens by 79.1% and 74.5%, while average accuracy rises by 3.13 and 3.30 percentage points, respectively. These findings connect the internal development of answer readiness to a practical rule for allocating reasoning computation.

The lack of reasoning capabilities in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) has remained at the forefront of research discourse. We posit that this behavior stems from a reporting bias in their training data. That is, how people communicate about visual content by default omits tacit information needed to supervise some types of reasoning; e.g., "at the game today!" is a more likely caption than "a photo of 37 people standing behind a field". We investigate the data underlying the popular VLMs OpenCLIP, LLaVA-1.5 and Molmo through the lens of theories from pragmatics, and find that reporting bias results in insufficient representation of four reasoning skills (spatial, temporal, negation, and counting), despite the corpora being of web-scale, and/or synthetically generated. With a set of curated benchmarks, we demonstrate that: (i) VLMs perform poorly on the aforementioned types of reasoning suppressed in the training data by reporting bias; (ii) contrary to popular belief, scaling data size, model size, and to multiple languages does not result in emergence of these skills by default; but, promisingly, (iii) incorporating annotations specifically collected to obtain tacit information is effective. Our findings highlight the need for more intentional training data curation methods, rather than counting on scale for emergence of reasoning capabilities.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remain prone to hallucinations, producing fluent but visually unfaithful outputs. Existing chain-of-thought and retrieval-augmented methods only partially address this, as they neither enforce step-level citation grounding nor route verification failures back to retrieval for correction. We present CaVe-VLM-CoT, a modular reflection-based agentic-RAG framework that enforces evidence-grounded reasoning through a five-stage closed-loop pipeline: Extractor, Retriever, Solver, Citation Injector, and Verifier, in which detected ungrounded claims trigger structured feedback to the Extractor for targeted re-retrieval. Since no existing framework jointly measures retrieval quality, step-wise citation faithfulness, and cross-modal grounding, we propose a suite of 23 component-wise metrics across all stages, anchored by CaVeScore, a composite metric weighting accuracy, citation precision and recall, attribution, and evidence grounding. Without any architectural or prompt modifications, CaVe-VLM-CoT achieves 87.1% accuracy and 56.6% CaVeScore on ScienceQA , and 55.2% accuracy and 35.7% CaVeScore on MMMU (30 subjects).