# Visual Grounding in Zero-Shot Vision-Language Control

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06154 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06154/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Embodied and 3D vision-language models, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 22 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Embodied and 3D vision-language models](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/embodied-and-3d-vision-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03744/) (2023)
- [Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12191/) (2024)
- [Qwen3-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21631/) (2025)
- [Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07780/) (2020)
- [Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08786/) (2021)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04118/) (2020)
- [Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12452/) (2021)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.01017/) (2021)
- [Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01247/) (2021)
- [NavGPT: Explicit Reasoning in Vision-and-Language Navigation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16986/) (2023)
- [SmolVLM: Redefining small and efficient multimodal models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05299/) (2025)
- [Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16863/) (2023)
- [MiniCPM-V 4.5: Cooking Efficient MLLMs via Architecture, Data, and Training Recipe](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18154/) (2025)
- [Learning to Fly -- a Gym Environment with PyBullet Physics for Reinforcement Learning of Multi-agent Quadcopter Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.02142/) (2021)
- [MapNav: A Novel Memory Representation via Annotated Semantic Maps for Vision-and-Language Navigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13451/) (2025)
- [VLM-Social-Nav: Socially Aware Robot Navigation through Scoring using Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00210/) (2024)
- [Semantic Invariance in Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.13173/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as zero-shot controllers, but successful trajectories do not necessarily show that decisions are grounded in visual input: simulator dynamics and conservative action priors can produce favourable scores without meaningful perception. We investigate this with an input-ablation battery: blind-image controls, repeated identical inputs, lane-axis reflection, non-visual baselines, and pipeline-integrity checks. Across nine direct-action models, six structured local VLMs, and an exploratory VLM-MPC hierarchy, we analyse 32,874 scored calls over two embodiments and three simulators. The direct-control results are largely negative: a constant-SLOW policy outperforms a scripted geometric controller, several models are image-invariant or nearly constant, and models that recognize longitudinal hazards still fail to transform LEFT and RIGHT under reflection. No local VLM meets the joint longitudinal and lateral grounding criteria. However, an image-only deterministic positive control estimates the lead gap with 0.090 m MAE and exact mirror equivariance, confirming the stimuli carry sufficient visual information; the failures are modular, not universal. A post-hoc, leakage-controlled symmetry-consensus guardian selects two models from 16 calibration frames and freezes a 2-of-4 hazard vote across original and reflected views. On 272 held-out frames it reaches 0.954 balanced accuracy (episode-cluster bootstrap 95% CI [0.895,0.990]); nested leave-one-episode-out recovers the same pair and threshold in all 12 folds. Abstaining on ties raises committed balanced accuracy to 0.973 at 0.824 coverage. With deterministic perception retaining lateral authority, offline modular replay achieves 0.934 action agreement and exact mirror equivariance. These results support current VLMs as bounded, selective hazard assistants, not monolithic zero-shot controllers.