# Do Multimodal LLMs See Before They Read? Diagnosing Contextual Sycophancy

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00067 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00067/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 7 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [MLLM training and visual instruction tuning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/mllm-training-and-visual-instruction-tuning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.0575/) (2014)
- [Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11511/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [Breaking Common Sense: WHOOPS! A Vision-and-Language Benchmark of Synthetic and Compositional Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07274/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Modality Prior-Induced Hallucinations in Multimodal Large Language Models via Deciphering Attention Causality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04780/) (2024)
- [Insight Over Sight: Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08145/) (2024)
- [Causal-LLaVA: Causal Disentanglement for Mitigating Hallucination in Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19474/) (2025)

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

- [Seeing Through the Forgery Is Not Enough: Regressive Sycophancy under Fabricated Evidence in Medical Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17989/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

External text can override conflicting image evidence in multimodal large language models, a failure we call multimodal contextual sycophancy. We introduce a 998-case diagnostic that independently varies visual evidence, commonsense priors, and external text, and probe when this failure arises by moving the information boundary around a context-blind visual witness. On abnormal images paired with Gemini-generated false text, GPT-5.1 scores 7.9% under joint conditioning, 49.7% when the context-blind witness report is scored directly, 63.7% under a matched two-call witness-arbiter pipeline that exposes the witness to the text, and 84.2% under System-2 Visual Arbitration (S2VA), which withholds the text from the witness. Across six models, S2VA improves over the direct witness report by 19.7 to 44.1 points, with all paired 95% confidence intervals excluding zero. The best information boundary is not uniform: textual context scaffolds some models, and a GPT-4o-regenerated subset changes the relative ordering of joint conditioning, Witness-Only, and S2VA. Contextual sycophancy is therefore sensitive to when text is introduced, as well as to the model and context source.