mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AnswerMap: Faithful Spatial Interpretability of VLMs from Answer Posteriors

arXiv 2609.35247 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When a VLM answers a visual query, current interpretability tools rely on text rationales, which use a mismatched modality, or on internal read-outs, which originate too early to reflect the final output and require white-box access to the model. We introduce AnswerMap, a training-free, task-agnostic, black-box visual rationale constructed from the output head. The image is cut into K row and K column bands, each shown alone to the frozen model along with the query in the format of a yes/no relevance question. The outer product of the row and column ``yes'' posteriors gives the query-conditioned spatial map. Crucially, by defining a fixed read-out R (e.g., expectation, maximum) on top of AnswerMap, we can derive continuous outputs like location natively. This bypasses the reliance on discrete text tokens for continuous-output tasks and guarantees an image-dependent answer by construction. However, a rationale can be confabulated, so we validate AnswerMap across four models and three query distributions with two tests: (a) agreement with the model's own generated point and (b) deletion of the map's region. The map lands where the model points (AUC 0.85 against 0.38 for attention), and deleting its region flips 53% of correct answers (against 19% for attention's). Beyond establishing faithfulness, we demonstrate the map's task-agnostic utility through three distinct read-outs: its maximum flags hallucinated objects without generation, its expectation localizes correctly when the model's own pointing fails, and its top-mass region, fed back as a crop, fixes half of the model's wrong answers. AnswerMap thus offers a new lens on VLM interpretability and, through its read-outs, a new output interface for visual tasks beyond text tokens.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

31 of 32 references.

References · 31

  1. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  4. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  5. 2019Towards VQA Models That Can Readcited by 1,696
  6. 2023Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 1,696
  7. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  8. 2016Modeling Context in Referring Expressionscited by 1,054
  9. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  10. 2015Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptionscited by 897
  11. 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
  12. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 759
19 more
  1. 2024An Image is Worth 1/2 Tokens After Layer 2: Plug-and-Play Inference Acceleration for Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 629
  2. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  3. 2021Generic Attention-model Explainability for Interpreting Bi-Modal and Encoder-Decoder Transformerscited by 316
  4. 2025Lingshu: A Generalist Foundation Model for Unified Multimodal Medical Understanding and Reasoningcited by 217
  5. 2016What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models?cited by 184
  6. 2025See What You Are Told: Visual Attention Sink in Large Multimodal Modelscited by 127
  7. 2025Your Large Vision-Language Model Only Needs A Few Attention Heads For Visual Groundingcited by 78
  8. 2025Token Activation Map to Visually Explain Multimodal LLMscited by 30
  9. 2024Do Vision & Language Decoders use Images and Text equally? How Self-consistent are their Explanations?cited by 23
  10. 2024On the Faithfulness of Vision Transformer Explanationscited by 19
  11. 2025Where do Large Vision-Language Models Look at when Answering Questions?cited by 15
  12. 2025Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing for Faithfulness in Vision-Language Model Explanationscited by 12
  13. 2026Are VLMs Seeing or Just Saying? Uncovering the Illusion of Visual Re-examinationcited by 12
  14. 2025GLIMPSE: Holistic Cross-Modal Explainability for Large Vision-Language Modelscited by 5
  15. 2026Large Vision-Language Models Get Lost in Attentioncited by 5
  16. 2026GridProbe: Posterior-Probing for Adaptive Test-Time Compute in Long-Video VLMscited by 4
  17. 2025CAVE: Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environmentscited by 3
  18. 2026Where Reliability Lives in Vision-Language Models: A Mechanistic Study of Attention, Hidden States, and Causal Circuitscited by 3
  19. 2026Visual Attention Faithfulness in Vision-Language Models is Heterogeneouscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)?
  2. 2025VisionTrap: Unanswerable Questions On Visual Data
  3. 2024A Comprehensive Survey on Visual Question Answering Datasets and Algorithms
  4. 2026SpatialChain: A Benchmark for Auditing Spatial Reasoning Faithfulness in VLMs
  5. 2025Probing the Visualization Literacy of Vision Language Models: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
  6. 2026What Lies Beneath: A Call for Distribution-based Visual Question & Answer Datasets
  7. 2025MapIQ: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models for Map Question Answering
  8. 2025SpaRE: Enhancing Spatial Reasoning in Vision-Language Models with Synthetic Data