# Do vision-language models search like humans? Reasoning tokens as a reaction-time analog in classic visual-search paradigms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25066 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25066/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12390/) (2024)
- [Vision language models are blind: Failing to translate detailed visual features into words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06581/) (2024)
- [Understanding the Limits of Vision Language Models Through the Lens of the Binding Problem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00238/) (2024)
- [Visual serial processing deficits explain divergences in human and VLM reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25142/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Human-Like Attention? A Psychophysical Comparison of Visual Search in Humans and MLLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05463/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Visual search has been one of the most productive paradigms in the study of visual attention: the way reaction time scales with the number of items distinguishes parallel, "pop-out" search from serial, attention-demanding search. I ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit the same behavioral signatures. I adapt four classic paradigms: feature versus conjunction search, spatial-configuration (T-vs-L) search, enumeration, and the tilted/vertical search asymmetry; and present them to current frontier and mid-tier models. Because a single model call has no reaction time, I use the number of reasoning ("thinking") tokens a model spends per trial as a within-model analog of search effort, and I compare against a large public human benchmark (Wolfe et al., 2010). The models reproduce several human signatures: feature search costs flat effort while conjunction effort climbs with set size; frontier models hold accuracy where mid-tier models collapse to chance; and a resolution control shows the conjunction cost is genuine search rather than difficulty resolving small shapes. They also diverge from humans in informative ways. The target-present effort slope exceeds the target-absent slope, reversing the human ordering; enumeration remains accurate where humans would lose count; and a reasoning model with adaptive deliberation declines to deliberate on detection tasks altogether, so that a single search expresses itself as an effort gradient in one model and as an accuracy cliff in another. I argue that psychophysical paradigms, applied behaviorally, are a sharp and inexpensive probe of machine visual cognition, and that the points of divergence are as informative as the points of agreement.