# Visual Credit Audit for Multimodal Spatial Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27069 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27069/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Spatial and embodied reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 18 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Spatial and embodied reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/spatial-and-embodied-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [LLaVA-OneVision: Easy Visual Task Transfer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03326/) (2024)
- [Qwen-VL: A Versatile Vision-Language Model for Understanding, Localization, Text Reading, and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12966/) (2023)
- [InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.18265/) (2025)
- [Aligning Large Multimodal Models with Factually Augmented RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.14525/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Hallucination in Large Multi-Modal Models via Robust Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14565/) (2023)
- [Ministral 3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08584/) (2026)
- [SpatialPIN: Enhancing Spatial Reasoning Capabilities of Vision-Language Models through Prompting and Interacting 3D Priors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13438/) (2024)
- [SpatialBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models for Spatial Cognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21471/) (2025)
- [GSR-BENCH: A Benchmark for Grounded Spatial Reasoning Evaluation via Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13246/) (2024)
- [Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12966/) (2024)
- [VisNec: Measuring and Leveraging Visual Necessity for Multimodal Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01195/) (2026)
- [Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.10400/) (2026)
- [Do Images Speak Louder than Words? Investigating the Effect of Textual Misinformation in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19202/) (2026)
- [Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22903/) (2026)
- [Enhancing Spatial Reasoning through Visual and Textual Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20529/) (2025)
- [OmniMapBench: Benchmarking Visual-Centric Reasoning on Diverse Map Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.09068/) (2026)
- [From Accuracy to Visual Dependence: Auditing and Filtering Modality Collapse in Traffic VideoQA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30220/) (2026)

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

- [Decodable but Misrouted: Sparse Features Uncover a Readout Gap in Vision-Language Models for Harmful Meme Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18860/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Closed yes/no spatial benchmarks can reward a correct answer even when the image adds little support beyond no-image contexts. Under a fixed forced-choice interface, Visual Credit Audit (VCA) separates two estimands: whether the benchmark image gives the model's declared decision more support than text-only and blank controls, and whether the model responds to relation-specific visual evidence. The first audit is training- and label-free and does not require an answer flip. Applying labels yields dependence-credited correctness (D-CC); on correct items, it equals same-control gold-aligned positive gain, while prediction alignment extends the audit to errors. Across four open MLLMs and two spatial benchmarks, 12.73-26.25% of decisions are correct yet uncredited. Matched same-split image permutation reduces D-CC by 21.25-47.80 points, with every paired 95% interval above zero. Fixed-pixel relation contrasts and a 3x3 evidence-source factorial show why null controls cannot identify relation response. Among controlled correct-but-uncredited agreement decisions, response to relation reversal spans 81.57-100.00%, while 32.11% pooled change answer. Independently audited outcomes on 108 geometry-compatible edits provide a bounded natural-image correspondence check. VCA thereby decomposes benchmark success into correctness, additional image support, and relation-consistent response.