Readout Blindness: VLM Scores Miss the Spatial Direction Their Frozen Encoders Retain
On the map: Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models → VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning also fits: Prompt learning and adaptation of CLIP
Abstract (arXiv)
CLIP-like vision-language models remain a cornerstone of multimodal systems, yet their scores stay near chance on directed spatial relations, such as whether one object is left of another. We call this failure readout blindness and analyze, theoretically and empirically, why deployed scores miss the direction: when scoring rules treat the subject and object symmetrically, direction cancels regardless of encoder training. Guided by this analysis, we introduce Antisymmetric Displacement Readout (ADR), which aligns caption words with image patches in the frozen features and scores each relation by the signed displacement between matched object centroids. Notably, ADR succeeds without additional training or learned parameters, thereby demonstrating that directional information remains in the frozen encoder. However, text and world priors can inflate accuracy, so we further introduce prior deflation, which measures the benefit of the image-text pairing as the grounded gain over a null that pairs each item with an unrelated image. Extensive experiments across encoder families show that ADR substantially improves over deployed scores, which remain near chance on most direction-balanced sets even for fine-tuned encoders. Compared with more complex readouts, ADR outperforms the evaluated MLLM likelihood readouts and is competitive with their chat inference at a small fraction of the computation. These results support our claim that directional information can be recovered from frozen features by an appropriate readout. Our implementation and evaluation kit will be publicly available.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Investigating Spatial Attention Bias in Vision-Language Models
- 2026One Geometry, Different Outcomes: Readout-Dependent Effects of the Modality Gap in Vision-Language Models
- 2026Seeing Isn't Believing: Uncovering Blind Spots in Evaluator Vision-Language Models
- 2026The Spatial Blindspot of Vision-Language Models
- 2026PolarVLM: Bridging the Semantic-Physical Gap in Vision-Language Models
- 2023Text encoders bottleneck compositionality in contrastive vision-language models
- 2026Adversarial Attacks Already Tell the Answer: Directional Bias-Guided Test-time Defense for Vision-Language Models
- 2026When Language Overwrites Vision: Over-Alignment and Geometric Debiasing in Vision-Language Models