Lost in Contrast: Instruction-Preserving Decoding for Reliable Visual Question Answering

Visual question answering models often produce plausible responses even when the available visual evidence is insufficient to support a valid answer. Although prior work has introduced benchmarks and abstention mechanisms for unanswerable visual questions, it remains unclear which signals derived from a frozen vision-language model reliably indicate answerability on unseen image-question pairs. We systematically evaluate answerability signals on a stratified 10K subset of UNK-VQA using frozen InstructBLIP, covering predictive uncertainty, cross-modal alignment, visual grounding, visual dependence, internal representations, and learned probes. Answerability discrimination remains weak, with test AUROC largely confined to 0.50-0.54. CLIP alignment yields the highest point estimate but does not significantly outperform generation confidence under paired bootstrap analysis. Targeted removal of question-relevant visual evidence causes substantially larger changes in answer confidence than same-size random masking, yet intervention sensitivity provides essentially no answerability discrimination. Increasing probe capacity, combining multiple signals, and adding reason-aware supervision do not provide robust improvements, while post-freeze cross-validation yields similarly weak discrimination. Selective-answering analysis shows limited usable coverage under low-risk operating criteria. Failure-mode analysis shows that the relative utility of individual signals varies across perturbation mechanisms. Taken together, these results show that, on our UNK-VQA subset with frozen InstructBLIP, visual dependence, uncertainty, semantic alignment, and static representations are not robust standalone proxies for answerability. Our findings emphasize the need to distinguish a model's reliance on visual evidence from whether that evidence is sufficient to support an answer.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit strong performance in instruction following and open-ended vision-language reasoning, yet they frequently generate fluent outputs that are weakly grounded in visual evidence. Prior works have shown that instruction prompting further worsens this issue by amplifying language priors, especially when the visual signal is uncertain or ambiguous. To address this challenge, we propose a decoding framework that explicitly balances linguistic informativeness and visual faithfulness during generation. Our method, Instruction-Evidence Contrastive Dual-Stream Decoding (IECD$^2$), maintains two parallel probability distribution of tokens at each decoding step: an instruction-driven stream that promotes expressive and informative responses, and an evidence-driven stream that enforces strict grounding in the image. These two streams are adaptively fused using a symmetric KL-based contrastive gate, which suppresses tokens favored by language priors but unsupported by visual evidence, while preserving them when both distributions agree. We evaluate IECD$^2$ on multiple datasets spanning various generative vision-language reasoning tasks such as captioning and visual question answering on multiple datasets such as, POPE, MME, VQAv2, AMBER, and MSCOCO. IECD$^2$ demonstrates consistent improvements in task accuracy and reasoning performance with substantial reduction in hallucination compared to state-of-the-art decoding approaches.

On-policy distillation (OPD) reveals versatility and convenience during VLM post-training, providing dense supervision for student from teacher. However, we observed an anomaly that the distilled VLM could still answer the questions accurately even when the related visual regions were masked or replaced with noise. Building on this observation, our quantitative and qualitative experiments demonstrate that OPD, which uses the answer as a hint, has failed to teach students to genuinely seek out and rely on visual evidence. Our theoretical analysis suggests that this failure arises from a shortcut enabled by the lack of visual constraints during distillation. To address the issue, we introduce Contrastive Vision On-policy Distillation (CV-OPD), which compares teacher distributions induced by positive and negative crops while conditioning on the same student prefix and augments optimization with a margin-based contrastive constraint, which is modulated with discrepancy gating across token and sample level. Specifically, CV-OPD first introduces a negative teacher unrelated to the answer and designs a Contrastive Divergence Loss (CDL) that constrains the feature distribution of student by contrasting the positive and negative teachers, correcting how the student exploits visual regions. The CV-OPD introduces a Discrepancy Aware Gate (DAG) that uses token-level and sample-level discrepancies to select visually relevant tokens for optimization, directing the student's attention toward visual content. Extensive experiments across a broad range of fine-grained visual benchmarks demonstrate that CV-OPD substantially alleviates shortcut and consistently improves the visual reasoning capabilities of existing VLMs.