# From Knowing to Abstaining: Bridging the Representation-Action Gap in Vision-Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.32653 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32653/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 34 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 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 34)

- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Flamingo: a Visual Language Model for Few-Shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.14198/) (2022)
- [InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06500/) (2023)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [Making the V in VQA Matter: Elevating the Role of Image Understanding in Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.00837/) (2016)
- [DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03654/) (2020)
- [Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07780/) (2020)
- [Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.09513/) (2022)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [Towards VQA Models That Can Read](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.08920/) (2019)
- [Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.01644/) (2016)
- [VizWiz Grand Challenge: Answering Visual Questions from Blind People](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.08218/) (2018)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13734/) (2023)
- [mPLUG-Owl2: Revolutionizing Multi-modal Large Language Model with Modality Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04257/) (2023)
- [Don't Just Assume; Look and Answer: Overcoming Priors for Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00377/) (2017)
- [Analyzing and Mitigating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00754/) (2023)
- [In-Context Learning Creates Task Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15916/) (2023)
- [Function Vectors in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15213/) (2023)
- [Multi-Modal Hallucination Control by Visual Information Grounding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14003/) (2024)
- [DOCCI: Descriptions of Connected and Contrasting Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.19753/) (2024)
- [VL-Uncertainty: Detecting Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Model via Uncertainty Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.11919/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03729/) (2023)
- [Consistency and Uncertainty: Identifying Unreliable Responses From Black-Box Vision-Language Models for Selective Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10193/) (2024)
- [The First to Know: How Token Distributions Reveal Hidden Knowledge in Large Vision-Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09037/) (2024)
- [UNK-VQA: A Dataset and a Probe into the Abstention Ability of Multi-modal Large Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10942/) (2023)
- [Post-Abstention: Towards Reliably Re-Attempting the Abstained Instances in QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01812/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The ability of vision-language models (VLMs) to abstain from unanswerable questions is as important as their ability to answer answerable ones accurately. Recently, several benchmarks have emerged to evaluate and improve VLM abstention, but they have substantial limitations. First, samples often contain shortcut cues in images or questions that reveal answerability, while an explicit "unanswerable" option further prevents accurate assessment of spontaneous abstention. Second, as training data, they generally provide only binary labels without fine-grained explanations for deeper supervision. To address these limitations, we introduce Visual Answerability Diagnosis with Rationales (VAD-R), a benchmark constructed through a two-stage pipeline of shortcut filtering and quality verification to prevent answerability leakage. Each example is annotated with step-by-step rationales and causal evidence-gap labels. Evaluation of state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs on VAD-R reveals limited spontaneous abstention, with average recall rates of only 11.4% and 16.3%, respectively. Probing analyses show that hidden-state representations in certain layers can effectively distinguish answerability, yet this distinction fails to manifest in final responses. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Rep2Act, a representation-to-action alignment method that translates latent answerability awareness into explicit abstention decisions. Rep2Act improves action accuracy on VAD-R from 56.67% to 86.33% for Qwen2.5-VL-3B and from 59.33% to 88.67% for Qwen2.5-VL-7B. On the out-of-distribution TUBench, Rep2Act achieves an average F1 score of 53.3% with only a 3B model, surpassing the closed-source GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o by 16.2% and 1.1%, respectively.