Answer-Level Trust Selection for Physical Vision-Language Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Multimodal reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth. In deployment, a key question is whether an individual prediction can be trusted when its ground truth is unavailable. Self-consistency alone may fail to capture important failure modes: a VLM may produce stable-but-wrong estimates or rely on textual priors rather than visual evidence. We formulate answer-level selective prediction for quantitative physical reasoning and propose Answer-Level Trust Selection (ATS), a post-hoc, model-agnostic framework for accepting or rejecting individual VLM predictions. ATS requires no fine-tuning, auxiliary verifier, or access to the model's internal logits. Instead, it aggregates eight interpretable behavioral diagnostic scores derived from repeated queries and controlled interventions into a unified trust score. We evaluate ATS in depth on Qwen2.5-VL-7B and across 20 VLM backbones, examining selective performance, diagnostic behavior, and targeted failure modes. Our results show that intervention-based diagnostics help identify stable-but-wrong and prior-tracking predictions that repeated agreement alone may miss. However, improved failure-case rejection can come at the cost of lower retention of correct predictions. ATS therefore complements model-level capability evaluation with answer-level reliability assessment for quantitative VLM predictions. Code will be released upon publication.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Multimodal reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 7 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.
Builds on
7 of 19 references.
References · 7
- 2021Physion: Evaluating Physical Prediction from Vision in Humans and Machinescited by 153
- 2022Reliable Visual Question Answering: Abstain Rather Than Answer Incorrectlycited by 89
- 2024VL-Uncertainty: Detecting Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Model via Uncertainty Estimationcited by 73
- 2022ComPhy: Compositional Physical Reasoning of Objects and Events from Videoscited by 63
- 2023Improving Selective Visual Question Answering by Learning from Your Peerscited by 25
- 2025Calibrating Uncertainty Quantification of Multi-Modal LLMs using Groundingcited by 8
- 2024Selectively Answering Visual Questionscited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026VL-Calibration: Decoupled Confidence Calibration for Large Vision-Language Models Reasoning
- 2026Reward Design for Physical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models
- 2026The Cost of Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought Induces Overconfidence in Vision-Language Models
- 2025QuantiPhy: A Quantitative Benchmark Evaluating Physical Reasoning Abilities of Vision-Language Models
- 2026Predicting When to Trust Vision-Language Models for Spatial Reasoning
- 2025Limits and Gains of Test-Time Scaling in Vision-Language Reasoning
- 2026VirtueBench: Evaluating Trustworthiness under Uncertainty in Long Video Understanding
- 2025VERIFY: A Benchmark of Visual Explanation and Reasoning for Investigating Multimodal Reasoning Fidelity