Beyond Modality Preference: Controlling Multimodal Arbitration under Modality Conflict in MLLMs

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) increasingly support high-stakes decision making by combining complementary information from images and text. While existing explainability methods identify influential image regions or text tokens, they cannot answer a fundamental question: which modality drives a prediction? Consequently, a model may produce the correct output while relying on the wrong source of evidence, masking shortcut learning and unsafe reasoning. We formulate modality attribution as a complementary explainability objective for multimodal foundation models and propose Counterfactual Modality Attribution (CMA), the first framework for quantifying modality-level contributions in MLLMs. CMA generates image-only, text-only, and joint multimodal counterfactuals using coupled diffusion priors and converts them into principled modality attribution scores through a cooperative game-theoretic formulation based on Shapley values. We evaluate CMA on controlled synthetic benchmarks with known ground-truth modality reliance and on a real-world multimodal clinical dataset. CMA correctly identifies the decision-driving modality in 98% of controlled cases and consistently outperforms baselines, revealing failures of cross-modal reasoning that remain invisible to predictive accuracy alone. Our results establish modality attribution as a complementary dimension of explainability beyond feature attribution, providing a principled framework for auditing multimodal foundation models in safety-critical applications.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly provided with contextual evidence in heterogeneous forms: as a text passage, as a rendered image of the same passage, or as both together. However, it remains unclear how consistently these surface forms are processed, especially when the evidence conflicts with the model's parametric knowledge. We study modality robustness under knowledge conflict across 13 MLLMs and two datasets, and find them far from robust. (1) Contrary to common belief, models favor a context that contradicts parametric knowledge more readily in image form than in text form; (2) when a contradicting text and image are presented together, the preferred modality is essentially arbitrary, varying with input order, model, and dataset. We further demonstrate that this instability has practical consequences: it degrades performance in multimodal RAG and can be exploited by adversarial attacks. To alleviate this brittleness, we examine several simple techniques---prompting, steering, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and direct preference optimization; the majority prove ineffective, whereas SFT achieves moderate success. We therefore call for greater awareness of this inconsistency and argue that it is fundamental, demanding attention at multiple training stages.

Modality-conflict hallucination occurs when multimodal large language models (MLLMs) prioritize erroneous textual premises over contradictory visual evidence. To understand why visual evidence fails to prevail during generation, we take a mechanistic perspective and examine which internal components drive or resist this failure. We perform head-level causal analysis using path patching across five open-source MLLMs and identify two groups of attention heads with opposing causal roles: hallucination-driving heads and hallucination-resisting heads. We find a consistent asymmetry: driving effects are more broadly distributed and carry greater aggregate weight, whereas resisting effects concentrate in a small number of high-importance heads. Ablation experiments further confirm that these groups exert opposing effects during generation: distributed driving influence and localized resistance together form an imbalanced routing structure that biases generation toward the erroneous premise. Motivated by this finding, we propose MACI (Modality-conflict-Aware Causal Intervention), a conditional intervention that suppresses causally identified hallucination-driving heads only when conflict is detected. Across five MLLMs, MACI achieves the largest hallucination reduction among compared inference-time baselines on the MMMC benchmark with a favorable hallucination-accuracy trade-off, and transfers zero-shot to the SCI-SemanticConflict test.