Diagnosing Visual Ignorance in Vision-Language Models
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve high accuracy on many visual question-answering benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether this accuracy reflects reliable use of the visual details a question depends on. We examine this tension through the lens of visual ignorance: cases where a model can represent task-relevant visual evidence without using it to determine the answer. Across three VLMs and twelve benchmarks, we track the answer-relevant information decodable at each decoder layer and measure when it becomes coupled to the final output. The visual evidence needed for the correct answer can already be read out from intermediate layers, yet it has little effect on the output until the final layers of the decoder. Causal residual interchange confirms that shifting the answer requires the late states, not the earlier ones. We then evaluate all twelve benchmarks under progressive Gaussian blur and find that substantial fractions of predictions survive the entire degradation sequence while continuing to receive benchmark credit. These results distinguish the availability of visual information from its influence on prediction, and show that standard accuracy can coexist with limited sensitivity to the tested visual detail. They motivate training and evaluation that make answer-relevant visual distinctions necessary to answer correctly.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 36 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2026.
Builds on
36 of 43 references.
Closest ancestors · 11
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Arbitration Failure, Not Perceptual Blindness: How Vision-Language Models Resolve Visual-Linguistic Conflicts10 Apr
- 2025Pixels Versus Priors: Controlling Knowledge Priors in Vision-Language Models through Visual Counterfacts21 May
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language Models3 Apr
- 2025Words or Vision: Do Vision-Language Models Have Blind Faith in Text?4 Mar
- 2024Probing Visual Language Priors in VLMs31 Dec
- 2024What's in the Image? A Deep-Dive into the Vision of Vision Language Models26 Nov
- 2024Molmo and PixMo: Open Weights and Open Data for State-of-the-Art Vision-Language Models25 Sep
- 2024Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words9 Jul
- 2024VLind-Bench: Measuring Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models13 Jun
- 2024Are We on the Right Way for Evaluating Large Vision-Language Models?29 Mar
- 2023Revisiting the Role of Language Priors in Vision-Language Models2 Jun
Other references · 25
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,418
- 2023InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuningcited by 2,876
- 2025Qwen3-VL Technical Reportcited by 2,793
- 2023MMBench: Is Your Multi-modal Model an All-around Player?cited by 2,141
- 2023MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGIcited by 2,080
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2017BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chaincited by 1,106
- 2023SEED-Bench: Benchmarking Multimodal LLMs with Generative Comprehensioncited by 940
- 2016A Diagram Is Worth A Dozen Imagescited by 804
- 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 722
13 more
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
- 2023HallusionBench: An Advanced Diagnostic Suite for Entangled Language Hallucination and Visual Illusion in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 583
- 2024BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceivecited by 550
- 2023V*: Guided Visual Search as a Core Mechanism in Multimodal LLMscited by 482
- 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215
- 2020BadNL: Backdoor Attacks against NLP Models with Semantic-preserving Improvementscited by 211
- 2024Divide, Conquer and Combine: A Training-Free Framework for High-Resolution Image Perception in Multimodal Large Language Modelscited by 161
- 2024Devils in Middle Layers of Large Vision-Language Models: Interpreting, Detecting and Mitigating Object Hallucinations via Attention Lenscited by 143
- 2024Interpreting and Editing Vision-Language Representations to Mitigate Hallucinationscited by 104
- 2026MIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understandingcited by 65
- 2025Knowing Before Saying: LLM Representations Encode Information About Chain-of-Thought Success Before Completioncited by 23
- 2025Towards Understanding How Knowledge Evolves in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 10
- 2025RePOPE: Impact of Annotation Errors on the POPE Benchmarkcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Seeing is not Enough: Vision-Language Models Perceive Evidence but Fail to Act
- 2026Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark
- 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?
- 2026Mirage Probes: How Vision Models Fake Visual Understanding
- 2025Seeing but Not Believing: Probing the Disconnect Between Visual Attention and Answer Correctness in VLMs
- 2025LanP: Rethinking the Impact of Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models
- 2026Look Where It Counts: A Free, Label-Free Visual Evidence Signal for Fine-Grained Vision-Language Reasoning
- 2026Seeing Isn't Believing: Uncovering Blind Spots in Evaluator Vision-Language Models