# Seeing is not Enough: Vision-Language Models Perceive Evidence but Fail to Act

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22588 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22588/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 36 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 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, 30 of 36)

- [Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1405.0312/) (2014)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00837/) (2016)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [HowTo100M: Learning a Text-Video Embedding by Watching Hundred Million Narrated Video Clips](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.03327/) (2019)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00923/) (2023)
- [Eyes Wide Shut? Exploring the Visual Shortcomings of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06209/) (2024)
- [ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08128/) (2023)
- [Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.03162/) (2022)
- [Visual Programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11559/) (2022)
- [LLaVA-CoT: Let Vision Language Models Reason Step-by-Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10440/) (2024)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [Don't Just Assume; Look and Answer: Overcoming Priors for Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00377/) (2017)
- [COIN: A Large-scale Dataset for Comprehensive Instructional Video Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.02874/) (2019)
- [Visual Spatial Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.00363/) (2022)
- [Visual Sketchpad: Sketching as a Visual Chain of Thought for Multimodal Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09403/) (2024)
- [To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12183/) (2024)
- [SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14610/) (2023)
- [The EPIC-KITCHENS Dataset: Collection, Challenges and Baselines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00343/) (2020)
- [Thinking with Images for Multimodal Reasoning: Foundations, Methods, and Future Frontiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.23918/) (2025)
- [Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21333/) (2024)
- [NaturalBench: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Natural Adversarial Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14669/) (2024)
- [Thinking with Generated Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22525/) (2025)
- [VLind-Bench: Measuring Language Priors in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08702/) (2024)
- [Probing Visual Language Priors in VLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00569/) (2024)

## 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)

Vision-language models (VLMs) perform strongly on visual question answering benchmarks, yet often make decisions that contradict visual evidence they have already identified correctly. We distinguish perceptual failure, where relevant evidence is not recognized, from process failure, where recognized evidence fails to constrain the final decision. We introduce VPAC-Bench, a benchmark spanning nine real-image process families, with each image annotated by its current activity stage and nearby stage transition. We also propose State-Relevance-Target (SRT), a family of structured process-prior interventions that requires models to connect visible evidence to the relevant process state before answering. Across multiple VLMs, process failure is widespread: models that correctly enumerate visual candidates still over-commit to a single answer in more than 95% of ambiguous cases. An explicit process-structured intervention reduces this rate to below 13% without degrading performance on unambiguous cases. However, the transfer of process priors is model-dependent, and generic SRT does not consistently outperform strong chain-of-thought baselines. When the relevant stage transition is known, boundary-aligned SRT substantially outperforms generic process prompting and all tested chain-of-thought baselines across assembly, physical state transition, navigation and traffic, and object-use affordance tasks. These results show that process priors are most useful when aligned with the scene's specific decision boundary, motivating boundary-aware prior selection for process-grounded visual reasoning.