Visual Attention Faithfulness in Vision-Language Models is Heterogeneous
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Whether attention weights faithfully reflect model reasoning has been actively debated in NLP, yet this question remains largely unexplored for the visual modality in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We address this gap through causal perturbation analysis on current VLMs, evaluating both the comprehensiveness and sufficiency gap of attention-ranked visual tokens. Our analysis reveals that visual attention faithfulness is heterogeneous, manifesting in three distinct processing modes: Faithful-Sufficient, where top-k attention tokens are both necessary and sufficient for prediction; Faithful-Distributed, where they are necessary but broader visual context remains required; and Non-Focal, where no localized attention region is individually necessary while visual information remains an essential trigger for prediction. Furthermore, human-annotated ground-truth regions satisfy comprehensiveness in only ~ 60% of cases compared with model attention rankings, revealing systematic divergence between model visual reliance and human intuition. We demonstrate these patterns across both general VQA on VQAv2 and document tasks on VRDU and ChartQA, showing that visual attention faithfulness varies systematically with processing demands and model architectures rather than being uniformly faithful or unfaithful.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. Builds on 4 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
4 of 36 references.
References · 4
- 2025Qwen2.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 5,587
- 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,588
- 2024Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scalingcited by 1,599
- 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Where Reliability Lives in Vision-Language Models: A Mechanistic Study of Attention, Hidden States, and Causal Circuits
- 2025Focusing by Contrastive Attention: Enhancing VLMs' Visual Reasoning
- 2026Seeing without Looking: Do Vision-Language Benchmarks Really Test Vision?
- 2024Unveiling Visual Perception in Language Models: An Attention Head Analysis Approach
- 2026Visuals Lie, Consistency Speaks: Disentangling Spatial Attention from Reliability in Vision-Language Models
- 2025V-SEAM: Visual Semantic Editing and Attention Modulating for Causal Interpretability of Vision-Language Models
- 2026Diagnosing Visual Ignorance in Vision-Language Models
- 2026Aligning What Vision-Language Models See and Perceive with Adaptive Information Flow