Does the Outfit Change the Price? Context Halo in Vision-Language Model Valuation of an Identical Low-Cost Necklace

Developers and consumers increasingly choose reasoning models (RMs) based on their listed API prices. However, how accurately do these prices reflect actual inference costs? We conduct the first systematic study of this question, evaluating 8 frontier RMs across 12 diverse tasks covering competition math, science QA, code generation, and multi-domain agents. We uncover the pricing reversal phenomenon: in 32% of model-pair comparisons, the model with a lower listed price actually incurs a higher total cost, with reversal magnitude reaching up to 28x. For example, Gemini 3 Flash's listed price is 80% cheaper than GPT-5.4's, yet its actual cost across all tasks is 38% higher. We build a formal cost attribution framework based on Shapley value, and leverage it to trace the dominating contributors to vast heterogeneity in thinking token consumption and number of interaction turns: on the same query, one model may use 900% more thinking tokens than another, or 10x more turns of environment interactions. We further show that per-query cost prediction is fundamentally difficult: repeated runs of the same query yield thinking token variation up to 9.7x, establishing an irreducible noise floor for any predictor. Thus, we propose cost distribution prediction as an open challenge. Our findings demonstrate that listed API pricing is an unreliable proxy for actual cost, calling for cost-aware model selection and transparent per-request cost monitoring.

We present Fashion Florence, a Florence-2 vision-language model fine-tuned with LoRA to extract structured fashion attributes from clothing images. Given a single photograph, the model generates a JSON object containing category, color, material, style tags, and occasion tags, structured output suitable for direct programmatic consumption by downstream recommendation and retrieval systems. Fine-tuning data is derived from the iMaterialist Fashion dataset (228 labels), where we collapse fine-grained annotations into a compact 6-category, 16-color, 19-style schema via rule-based label engineering. We apply LoRA (r=16, alpha=32) to all decoder linear layers, training for 3 epochs on 3,688 examples. On a held-out test set of 461 images, Fashion Florence achieves 94.6% category accuracy and 63.0% material accuracy, compared to 89.3% / 43.3% for GPT-4o-mini and 87.4% for Gemini 2.5 Flash. Fashion Florence produces valid JSON in 99.8% of outputs while running at 0.77B parameters on a single GPU at zero marginal inference cost. Style tag F1 reaches 0.753 vs. 0.612 (Gemini) and 0.398 (GPT-4o-mini). The model is deployed as a Hugging Face Space and integrated into Loom, an open-source outfit recommendation system.

We show that aligned vision-language models also condition refusal on a property of a request's form: whether an image is attached, holding everything the request asks fixed. Attaching a blank canvas, an image that cannot be read, cannot relate to the request, and is byte-identical across every prompt in its condition, shifts benign refusal by tens of points. The shift is not blanket caution but a threshold shift: genuinely neutral instructions are almost unaffected (<=2 percentage points on three of four hosted models) while borderline-benign prompts move +23 to +51 points, so the cost falls on sensitivity-adjacent traffic, meaning benign questions about privacy, self-harm, violence and illegal activity. There is a benign reading of such a threshold, namely that attachment correlates with risk in real traffic, and we take it seriously; a black-box study cannot measure that correlation and we do not claim to. What it can test is whether the response to attachment is robust to variation carrying no information about the request, and on four independent measurements it is not. It varies with canvas colour and pixel count. Its sign inverts across checkpoints. It survives an explicit instruction to disregard the image. And on one model it fires on a bare assertion that an attachment exists, with nothing attached and the modality word contributing none of it. Finally we price it. On a matched harmful set the same canvas does lower attack success, so the cue buys something. But the charge is decoupled from the purchase: the checkpoint with the least harmful headroom we measure, completing only 2% of plain harmful requests, still pays the benign cost in full, and across our models the harmful-side denominator falls as alignment improves while the benign cost does not track it down. Image presence is not a conservative default that a deployer chose and priced. It is an uncontrolled variable.