Do Vision-Language Models See or Guess? Measuring and Reducing Textual-Prior Reliance with a Phrasing-Controlled Benchmark
Quick Answer
This paper shows that A new benchmark reveals that vision-language models (VLMs) often rely on textual priors rather than image content, with performance dropping significantly on harder variants.
Quick Take
A new benchmark reveals that vision-language models (VLMs) often rely on textual priors rather than image content, with performance dropping significantly on harder variants. Eleven models were tested, showing open-weight models degrade to a text-only accuracy of 1-9%. Techniques like GRPO post-training can help reduce this reliance.
Key Points
- A benchmark of 540 images across six reasoning categories was created.
- Open-weight models showed the largest performance drop on the hardest question variant.
- No-image ablation tests revealed a drop to 1-9% accuracy for open models.
- In-context exemplars improved accuracy significantly for VLMs.
- GRPO post-training yielded consistent performance gains across all test variants.
Paper Resources
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2606. 10400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed where answers must follow from what is in the image, yet they often answer from textual priors, the question's phrasing together with memorized world knowledge, rather than from the image itself, which inflates benchmark scores and yields confident but ungrounded answers. Existing benchmarks rarely isolate this behavior, since each image is usually paired with a single fixed question.
To measure the reliance, we build a 540-image benchmark across six reasoning categories and generate four question variants over the same images, so that phrasing rather than image content is the controlled variable. The hardest variant is written directly from the image to minimize text leakage. We benchmark eleven VLMs spanning small open-weight models to large closed-source systems: every model degrades on the hardest variant, and open models fall furthest.
Our central diagnostic is a no-image ablation, which collapses the open-weight models to their text-only floor (1 to 9 percent). Three further analyses, LLM-rated difficulty, low base-to-final textual similarity, and human re-annotation, corroborate genuine image-dependence. In-context exemplars that match how a variant was built recover the most accuracy, and GRPO post-training of a small VLM yields consistent gains across all four variants that transfer to a held-out out-of-distribution set.
Textual-prior reliance is measurable and partly trainable away.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The REFLECT benchmark reveals that current LLM judges are unreliable, achieving below 55% accuracy in evaluating reasoning and evidence use, highlighting the need for improved evaluation methods for deep research agents.