# Small Vision-Language Models Know When They Are Wrong But Cannot Say So: A Two-Model Study of Stated versus Internal Confidence Under Realistic Image Degradation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22034 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.22034/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 9 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/hallucination-mitigation-in-lvlms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12191/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.12261/) (2019)
- [Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02530/) (2019)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Coming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.07484/) (2019)
- [Overconfidence is Key: Verbalized Uncertainty Evaluation in Large Language and Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02917/) (2024)
- [Know What You do Not Know: Verbalized Uncertainty Estimation Robustness on Corrupted Images in Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03440/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed on consumer hardware where input images are degraded by compression, camera shake, and poor lighting. In such settings, a reliable uncertainty signal matters more than raw accuracy, because it determines when a system should defer rather than answer. We evaluate two small open-weight VLMs -- Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct and SmolVLM-Instruct -- across six realistic photographic degradations at three severity levels, comparing two confidence signals: the confidence the model states in natural language, and the model's own mean token probability over its generated answer. Across 3,800 predictions, we find a large and consistent gap. Verbalized confidence in Qwen2-VL is almost constant (mean 0.87-0.90 across all conditions) and detects its own errors at chance level (AUROC 0.39-0.75, typically ~0.50), while internal token probability from the same model separates correct from incorrect answers with AUROC 0.92-0.99. In SmolVLM, verbalized confidence proved largely unobtainable: across three prompt templates, only one of five pilot attempts produced a parseable confidence value, while internal probability again yielded above-chance error detection (AUROC 0.54-0.92). Both models fail in the same place: under severe underexposure, accuracy collapses (0.99->0.22 for Qwen2-VL, 0.97->0.42 for SmolVLM) while both confidence signals barely move, and internal error-detection falls to chance. We conclude that small VLMs encode usable self-knowledge that their verbalized output does not express, that internal probability is therefore the better deferral signal in constrained deployment, and that neither signal should be trusted under severe low-light conditions.