# Seeing What Is Actually There: PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools for Counterfactual Evaluation of Agentic Visual Evidence in VLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16311 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.16311/

## 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 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [VQA: Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.00468/) (2015)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18265/) (2025)
- [MM-REACT: Prompting ChatGPT for Multimodal Reasoning and Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11381/) (2023)
- [V*: Guided Visual Search as a Core Mechanism in Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14135/) (2023)
- [Don't Just Assume; Look and Answer: Overcoming Priors for Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00377/) (2017)
- [Set-of-Mark Prompting Unleashes Extraordinary Visual Grounding in GPT-4V](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11441/) (2023)
- [RUBi: Reducing Unimodal Biases in Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.10169/) (2019)
- [Words or Vision: Do Vision-Language Models Have Blind Faith in Text?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.02199/) (2025)
- [Breaking Common Sense: WHOOPS! A Vision-and-Language Benchmark of Synthetic and Compositional Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07274/) (2023)
- [Vision Language Models are Biased](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23941/) (2025)
- [Probing Visual Language Priors in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00569/) (2024)
- [The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) Challenge 2023: Brain MR Image Synthesis for Tumor Segmentation (BraSyn)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09011/) (2023)
- [Towards Perceiving Small Visual Details in Zero-shot Visual Question Answering with Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16033/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself. Counterfactual images provide a natural diagnostic setting for this failure mode: when visible evidence contradicts what is usually true, a grounded model should answer from the pixels, while a prior-following model will produce a canonical but visually incorrect response. However, existing counterfactual benchmarks mainly ask whether such prior-following behavior exists. In this paper, we ask a further question motivated by the rise of tool-augmented and agentic vision systems: can additional visual evidence views help VLMs reason against their priors? We introduce PriVE-Bench, a Prior-vs-Visual Evidence Benchmark that uses paired original and counterfactual images to distinguish visually grounded answers from prior-consistent errors. We further introduce PriVE-Tools, a controlled agentic-vision-inspired extension that evaluates whether tool-derived visual evidence -- including bounding boxes, crops, zoom panels, and contours -- improves grounding under the same counterfactual conflicts. Across open- and closed-source VLMs, we compare raw, paired-image, and tool-conditioned inputs using accuracy, prior-following error rate, and other-response rate. Our results show that visual evidence tools can help in some settings, especially when models can use localized evidence effectively, but they are not a universal remedy: several models continue to follow language and category priors even when relevant visual evidence is explicitly provided.