# Vision-Default, Prior-Override: Causal Mechanisms of Perception-Knowledge Conflict in Vision-Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28273 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.28273/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 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 18 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 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, 18 of 18)

- [Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12191/) (2024)
- [Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05262/) (2022)
- [Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.14913/) (2020)
- [Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Build Predictions by Promoting Concepts in the Vocabulary Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14680/) (2022)
- [Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16042/) (2023)
- [PaliGemma 2: A Family of Versatile VLMs for Transfer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.03555/) (2024)
- [Causal Mediation Analysis for Interpreting Neural NLP: The Case of Gender Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.12265/) (2020)
- [Interpreting and Editing Vision-Language Representations to Mitigate Hallucinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02762/) (2024)
- [Cutting Off the Head Ends the Conflict: A Mechanism for Interpreting and Mitigating Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18154/) (2024)
- [What's in the Image? A Deep-Dive into the Vision of Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.17491/) (2024)
- [Towards Vision-Language Mechanistic Interpretability: A Causal Tracing Tool for BLIP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14179/) (2023)
- [NNsight and NDIF: Democratizing Access to Open-Weight Foundation Model Internals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.14561/) (2024)
- [Same Task, Different Circuits: Disentangling Modality-Specific Mechanisms in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09047/) (2025)
- [Overcoming Sparsity Artifacts in Crosscoders to Interpret Chat-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02922/) (2025)
- [Pixels Versus Priors: Controlling Knowledge Priors in Vision-Language Models through Visual Counterfacts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17127/) (2025)
- [When Modalities Conflict: How Unimodal Reasoning Uncertainty Governs Preference Dynamics in MLLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02243/) (2025)
- [Visual Representations inside the Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04819/) (2025)
- [Arbitration Failure, Not Perceptual Blindness: How Vision-Language Models Resolve Visual-Linguistic Conflicts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.09364/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Prior Directions: Why GUI Grounding Gets Locked in the Past](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26913/) (2026)
- [Context-Grounding Gains Are Mediated by Pre-existing Machinery: Auditing GRPO, SFT, and DPO](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00925/) (2026)
- [Where Should Language Sit in a Multimodal Model? Lessons from What Language Does to Human Perception and Cognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07474/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models must reconcile visual evidence with memorized world knowledge when the two conflict. How they resolve this conflict shapes the reliability of multimodal systems, yet prior work characterizes it behaviorally without a component-level causal account. We combine activation patching across three granularities (residual stream, attention heads, and MLP sublayers) with model-component ablation studies and mechanistic analysis. Across three VLM families, we find that visual grounding emerges by default, whereas prior grounding depends on a small set of causally necessary attention heads (2.5-4.8%) concentrated in the second half of the network. These heads enable answers from stored world knowledge (e.g., "red" for a strawberry) despite conflicting visual input. Ablating them flips predictions from knowledge-grounded to visually grounded answers in 68-96% of cases under prior-knowledge prompts, but changes only 0.8-7.5% of visually grounded predictions, establishing an asymmetric causal structure. The identified heads decompose into routing heads, which modulate information flow, and writing heads, which directly project answer tokens into the residual stream. This structure is consistent across model families and scales, revealing a sparse causal circuit underlying perception-knowledge conflict in VLMs.