mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Probing Vision-Language Understanding through the Visual Entailment Task: promises and pitfalls

arXiv 2507.17467 ↗First posted 23 Jul 2025cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

This study investigates the extent to which the Visual Entailment (VE) task serves as a reliable probe of vision-language understanding in multimodal language models, using the LLaMA 3.2 11B Vision model as a test case. Beyond reporting performance metrics, we aim to interpret what these results reveal about the underlying possibilities and limitations of the VE task. We conduct a series of experiments across zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning settings, exploring how factors such as prompt design, the number and order of in-context examples and access to visual information might affect VE performance. To further probe the reasoning processes of the model, we used explanation-based evaluations. Results indicate that three-shot inference outperforms the zero-shot baselines. However, additional examples introduce more noise than they provide benefits. Additionally, the order of the labels in the prompt is a critical factor that influences the predictions. In the absence of visual information, the model has a strong tendency to hallucinate and imagine content, raising questions about the model's over-reliance on linguistic priors. Fine-tuning yields strong results, achieving an accuracy of 83.3% on the e-SNLI-VE dataset and outperforming the state-of-the-art OFA-X model. Additionally, the explanation evaluation demonstrates that the fine-tuned model provides semantically meaningful explanations similar to those of humans, with a BERTScore F1-score of 89.2%. We do, however, find comparable BERTScore results in experiments with limited vision, questioning the visual grounding of this task. Overall, our results highlight both the utility and limitations of VE as a diagnostic task for vision-language understanding and point to directions for refining multimodal evaluation methods.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Atomic Visual Entailment: Enhancing Zero-Shot Vision-Language Reasoning through Atomic Fact Decomposition and Learned Selection
  2. 2026ENTRAP-VL: A Taxonomic Probe for Dual Contextual Entrainment in Vision-Language Models
  3. 2026Reasoning Dynamics and the Limits of Monitoring Modality Reliance in Vision-Language Models
  4. 2024FiVL: A Framework for Improved Vision-Language Alignment through the Lens of Training, Evaluation and Explainability
  5. 2026Seeing is not Enough: Vision-Language Models Perceive Evidence but Fail to Act
  6. 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?
  7. 2026Do Vision-Language Models Truly Perform Vision Reasoning? A Rigorous Study of the Modality Gap
  8. 2024JourneyBench: A Challenging One-Stop Vision-Language Understanding Benchmark of Generated Images