Ill-Posed by Design: Probing Evidence Use in VLMs
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Counterfactual analysis is widely used to study evidence use in vision-language models, but its diagnostic value is limited on well-posed tasks: when several cues independently support the same answer, removing one may not change the prediction. We propose monocular metric object-size estimation as an ill-posed diagnostic setting for evidence selection: because physical size cannot be determined from a single uncalibrated image, models must rely on imperfect cues category priors, target appearance, local context, apparent image size, and scene geometry. We assemble Metric VQA (10,813 dimension queries from Objectron and 331 tape-measured in-the-wild scenes) and evaluate 12 open-weight VLMs (3--397,B parameters) with counterfactual analysis decomposing six visual and language evidence channels. Even the largest VLMs tested (Qwen3-VL-235B, Qwen3.5-397B, InternVL3.5-241B) trail a text-only frontier LLM on the in-the-wild split. The diagnostic analysis shows: target identity is the most load-bearing cue, target pixels and local context help only some models, apparent size shifts predictions without a directional readout, and global scene geometry is largely unused. We analyze LoRA fine-tuning as an actionable intervention specific to metric estimation: while the task is learnable, the models do not learn to leverage scene geometry.
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 12 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.
Builds on
12 of 18 references.
References · 12
- 2023InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Taskscited by 2,565
- 2016Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,516
- 2022ChartQA: A Benchmark for Question Answering about Charts with Visual and Logical Reasoningcited by 1,479
- 2014Depth Map Prediction from a Single Image using a Multi-Scale Deep Networkcited by 1,274
- 2025SAM 3: Segment Anything with Conceptscited by 906
- 2024SpatialVLM: Endowing Vision-Language Models with Spatial Reasoning Capabilitiescited by 706
- 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 612
- 2017Don't Just Assume; Look and Answer: Overcoming Priors for Visual Question Answeringcited by 339
- 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 243
- 2025SmolVLM: Redefining small and efficient multimodal modelscited by 237
- 2020Objectron: A Large Scale Dataset of Object-Centric Videos in the Wild with Pose Annotationscited by 155
- 2025DepthLM: Metric Depth From Vision Language Modelscited by 30
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Seeing What Is Actually There: PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools for Counterfactual Evaluation of Agentic Visual Evidence in VLMs
- 2026How Do VLMs Behave When Blind or Misled? Behavioral Evaluation of VLMs on Scientific Figures
- 2026OccludeBench: Can VLMs Find What's Missing?
- 2026CounterCount: A Diagnostic Framework for Counting Bias in Vision Language Models
- 2026The Visual Insensitivity Gap: Diagnosing When Vision-Language Models Fail to Use Visual Evidence
- 2026Evidence-RL: Towards Evidence-intensive Visual Reasoning
- 2026Visual Evidence Under Cross-Examination: Evaluating and Controlling Decision-Level Evidence Use in Vision-Language Models
- 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?