# Recompute or Reuse? Diagnosing and Mitigating Textual Shortcuts in VLM Self-Reflection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01930 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01930/

## 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 16 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 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, 16 of 16)

- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Measuring Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with MATH-Vision Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14804/) (2024)
- [MMMU-Pro: A More Robust Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02813/) (2024)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models with Just Forward Passes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17333/) (2023)
- [More Thinking, Less Seeing? Assessing Amplified Hallucination in Multimodal Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21523/) (2025)
- [Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17752/) (2024)
- [Look-Back: Implicit Visual Re-focusing in MLLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.03019/) (2025)
- [Self-Correction is More than Refinement: A Learning Framework for Visual and Language Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04055/) (2024)
- [Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19764/) (2024)
- [Confidence v.s. Critique: A Decomposition of Self-Correction Capability for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19513/) (2024)
- [Are VLMs Seeing or Just Saying? Uncovering the Illusion of Visual Re-examination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.15864/) (2026)
- [Do VLMs Perceive or Recall? Probing Visual Perception vs. Memory with Classic Visual Illusions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22150/) (2026)
- [See It, Say It, Sorted: An Iterative Training-Free Framework for Visually-Grounded Multimodal Reasoning in LVLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21497/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to revise their reasoning when visual evidence changes. Failures to do so are often attributed to insufficient visual attention or contextual inertia, leaving unclear what models reuse instead of recomputing from the current image. We show that evidence-bearing reasoning in a prior chain of thought (CoT) can form a textual shortcut that competes behaviorally with visual recomputation. Across 16 VLMs, a matched counterfactual analysis identifies evidence-bearing content as the most robust carrier of prior-CoT influence. Removing this evidence-bearing content shifts answer preference more than removing length-matched non-evidence context or the final-answer span, with prior control weakening progressively as more stale evidence is removed. Reordering this evidence also weakens prior control, showing that its organization modulates shortcut strength. Beyond the immediate answer, the shortcut can retain residual influence after answer correction: weakening current-image support shifts preference back toward the prior answer, while repeated prior answers and reused premises arise mainly when the shortcut remains active. To limit this influence, we introduce Fresh-State Attention Firewall (FSAF), a training-free intervention that isolates fresh computation from the prior CoT. Across five VLMs, FSAF raises visual update rate from 35.28% to 53.61% and reduces prior-answer rate from 39.22% to 3.67%. Reliable VLM self-reflection therefore requires more than looking again: fresh visual recomputation must be protected from stale textual reuse.