# Seeing Depth but Choosing Cues in Vision-Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17976 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17976/

## 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 17 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 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, 17 of 17)

- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.01644/) (2016)
- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Addition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06681/) (2023)
- [Cambrian-1: A Fully Open, Vision-Centric Exploration of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16860/) (2024)
- [SpatialVLM: Endowing Vision-Language Models with Spatial Reasoning Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12168/) (2024)
- [Depth Anything 3: Recovering the Visual Space from Any Views](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.10647/) (2025)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.15097/) (2022)
- [BLINK: Multimodal Large Language Models Can See but Not Perceive](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12390/) (2024)
- [DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03883/) (2023)
- [SpatialRGPT: Grounded Spatial Reasoning in Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01584/) (2024)
- [LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed form](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03819/) (2023)
- [Gemma 4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02770/) (2026)
- [Linear Mechanisms for Spatiotemporal Reasoning in Vision Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12626/) (2026)
- [Why Far Looks Up: Probing Spatial Representation in Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30161/) (2026)
- [Decodable Is Not Grounded: A Vision-Ablation Arbiter for VLM Spatial Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.31257/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Do vision-language models use depth information to judge which object is closer, or rely on image-plane cues? We investigate this question through controlled depth--cue conflicts, representation analysis, and interventions. Among the many image-plane cues relevant to depth perception, we focus on apparent size and vertical position. We compare depth judgments under cue-consistent and cue-conflict conditions in both rendered scenes and real-world photographs. Across model families and scales, depth judgments systematically shift toward misleading cues. Yet the correct depth order remains decodable from the queried objects' visual representations, including when the model answers incorrectly. Image and category controls support interpreting this signal as image-dependent depth information beyond the two target cues. Strengthening the model's own depth readout through object-level write-back can correct conflict decisions without updating model parameters or using ground-truth depth annotations. Interventions show that the effect of this correction depends on the direction and target tokens of the written signal, while its strength varies across architectures and domains. Together, these findings reveal a mismatch between a model's ability to represent depth and use this information when deciding the answer. VLMs can retain useful depth information while allowing competing image-plane cues to exert greater influence on their answers.