Did I See It or Think It? Probing Reality Monitoring in Vision-Language Models with Concept Injection

Visual inputs are often assumed to improve language understanding in multimodal models. We examine this assumption by asking whether vision-language models (VLMs) can distinguish useful visual evidence from incidental image context in lexical judgments. We use human concreteness and imagery ratings because they span words with varying expected visual relevance, from abstract and low-imagery words to concrete and high-imagery words. We find that real-image contexts do not yield consistent gains and often hurt alignment with human ratings, most sharply when visual evidence is least relevant. Through probing and canonical correlation analysis, complemented by an attribution case study, we find that real-image contexts are associated with representational shifts and greater sensitivity to spurious visual cues, coinciding with weaker recoverability of the targeted lexical properties. We further show that instructing models to focus solely on textual content at inference time can reduce this degradation, with the clearest gains on these vulnerable subsets. Our findings suggest that current instruction-tuned VLMs need better calibration of when visual context should inform lexical judgments.

Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often produce self-reflective statements like "let me check the figure again" during reasoning. Do such statements trigger genuine visual re-examination, or are they merely learned textual patterns? We investigate this via VisualSwap, an image-swap probing framework: after a model reasons over an image, we replace it with a visually similar but semantically different one and test whether the model notices. We introduce VS-Bench, 800 image pairs curated from MathVista, MathVerse, MathVision, and MMMU-Pro. Experiments on Qwen3-VL, Kimi-VL, and ERNIE-VL reveal a striking failure: models overwhelmingly miss the swap, with accuracy dropping by up to 60%. Counterintuitively, thinking models are nearly 3x more vulnerable than their instructed counterparts, and scaling offers no mitigation. Multi-turn user instructions restore visual grounding, but self-generated reflective statements during continuous generation do not. Attention analysis explains why: user instructions substantially elevate attention to visual tokens, whereas self-reflection does not. Current VLMs tend to say rather than actually see when claiming to perform visual re-examination. Our code and dataset are available at the project page: https://visualswap.github.io