# Believing without Seeing: Quality Scores for Contextualizing Vision-Language Model Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25844 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25844/

## 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.
- Builds on 32 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10355/) (2023)
- [VizWiz Grand Challenge: Answering Visual Questions from Blind People](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08218/) (2018)
- [A-OKVQA: A Benchmark for Visual Question Answering using World Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01718/) (2022)
- [MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02813/) (2024)
- [Aligning Text-to-Image Models using Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12192/) (2023)
- [Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14779/) (2020)
- [Detecting and Preventing Hallucinations in Large Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.06394/) (2023)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12762/) (2020)
- [Reframing Human-AI Collaboration for Generating Free-Text Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08674/) (2021)
- [Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04119/) (2020)
- [ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10703/) (2023)
- [Overconfidence is Key: Verbalized Uncertainty Evaluation in Large Language and Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02917/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12558/) (2023)
- [Vera: A General-Purpose Plausibility Estimation Model for Commonsense Statements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03695/) (2023)
- [Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationales](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.07095/) (2023)
- [Uncalibrated Models Can Improve Human-AI Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05983/) (2022)
- [REV: Information-Theoretic Evaluation of Free-Text Rationales](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.04982/) (2022)
- [VIFIDEL: Evaluating the Visual Fidelity of Image Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.09340/) (2019)
- [Long-Form Answers to Visual Questions from Blind and Low Vision People](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06303/) (2024)
- [Are Machines Better at Complex Reasoning? Unveiling Human-Machine Inference Gaps in Entailment Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03686/) (2024)
- [GuideDog: A Real-World Egocentric Multimodal Dataset for Blind and Low-Vision Accessibility-Aware Guidance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.12844/) (2025)
- [Why is plausibility surprisingly problematic as an XAI criterion?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17707/) (2023)
- [On Evaluating Explanation Utility for Human-AI Decision Making in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03545/) (2024)
- [The Illusion of Competence: Evaluating the Effect of Explanations on Users' Mental Models of Visual Question Answering Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19170/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When people query Vision-Language Models (VLMs) but cannot see the accompanying visual context (e.g. for blind and low-vision users), augmenting VLM predictions with natural language explanations can signal which model predictions are reliable. However, prior work has found that explanations can easily convince users that inaccurate VLM predictions are correct. To remedy undesirable overreliance on VLM predictions, we propose evaluating two complementary qualities of VLM-generated explanations via two quality scoring functions. We propose Visual Fidelity, which captures how faithful an explanation is to the visual context, and Contrastiveness, which captures how well the explanation identifies visual details that distinguish the model's prediction from plausible alternatives. On the A-OKVQA, VizWiz, and MMMU-Pro tasks, these quality scoring functions are better calibrated with model correctness than existing explanation qualities. We conduct a user study in which participants have to decide whether a VLM prediction is accurate without viewing its visual context. We observe that showing our quality scores alongside VLM explanations improves participants' accuracy at predicting VLM correctness by 11.1%, including a 15.4% reduction in the rate of falsely believing incorrect predictions. These findings highlight the utility of explanation quality scores in fostering appropriate reliance on VLM predictions.