# Auditing Disability Representation in Vision-Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17348 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17348/

## 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 17 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2026.

## 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, 17 of 17)

- [Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1405.0312/) (2014)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14050/) (2020)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.09457/) (2017)
- [A Prompt Array Keeps the Bias Away: Debiasing Vision-Language Models with Adversarial Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11933/) (2022)
- [Examining Gender and Racial Bias in Large Vision-Language Models Using a Novel Dataset of Parallel Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05779/) (2024)
- [Seeing but Not Believing: Probing the Disconnect Between Visual Attention and Answer Correctness in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17771/) (2025)
- [Probing Visual Language Priors in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00569/) (2024)
- [Unpacking the Interdependent Systems of Discrimination: Ableist Bias in NLP Systems through an Intersectional Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.00521/) (2021)
- [Beyond Visual Perception: Insights from Smartphone Interaction of Visually Impaired Users with Large Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16098/) (2025)
- [DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14971/) (2025)
- [Vision-Language Models display a strong gender bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11262/) (2025)
- [AccessEval: Benchmarking Disability Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22703/) (2025)
- [ABLEIST: Intersectional Disability Bias in LLM-Generated Hiring Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10998/) (2025)
- [Debiased Prompt Tuning in Vision-Language Model without Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08368/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive applications, yet their behavior with respect to disability remains underexplored. We study disability aware descriptions for person centric images, where models often transition from evidence grounded factual description to interpretation shift including introduction of unsupported inferences beyond observable visual evidence. To systematically analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a benchmark based on paired Neutral Prompts (NP) and Disability-Contextualised Prompts (DP) and evaluate 15 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs under a zero-shot setting across 9 disability categories. Our evaluation framework treats interpretive fidelity as core objective and combines standard text-based metrics capturing affective degradation through shifts in sentiment, social regard and response length with an LLM-as-judge protocol, validated by annotators with lived experience of disability. We find that introducing disability context consistently degrades interpretive fidelity, inducing interpretation shifts characterised by speculative inference, narrative elaboration, affective degradation and deficit oriented framing. These effects are further amplified along race and gender dimension. Finally, we demonstrate targeted prompting and preference fine-tuning effectively improves interpretive fidelity and reduces substantially interpretation shifts.