This work proposes Counterfactual Evidence Disentanglement (CED), a training-time evidence audit for VLM grounding, which outperforms prior RL-based post-training methods, with targeted analyses verifying its object-centric signal.
Abstract
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) should answer from concrete image evidence rather than language priors, dataset shortcuts, or irrelevant visual context. Existing perception-aware post-training methods encourage image use through global perturbations or attention proxies, but they do not test whether a sampled answer causally depends on the local evidence that supports it. We propose Counterfactual Evidence Disentanglement (CED), a training-time evidence audit for VLM grounding. For each response, CED neutralizes an object-centric Evidence Region and compares the resulting support drop against matched non-evidence Regions. We combine this signal with answer correctness inside GRPO, rewarding correct answers that rely on the evidence path rather than shortcut or nuisance paths. CED uses weak object-level proposals, requires no question-specific evidence annotations, and adds no inference-time overhead. Across nine public benchmarks and four backbones, CED outperforms prior RL-based post-training methods, with targeted analyses verifying its object-centric signal.
Vision-language models (VLMs) perform strongly on visual question answering benchmarks, yet often make decisions that contradict visual evidence they have already identified correctly. We distinguish perceptual failure, where relevant evidence is not recognized, from process failure, where recognized evidence fails to...
Yu-Yang Dai, Bo-Fei Huang, Hong-Bo Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) fail at fine-grained visual questions less because they cannot reason than because they never see the evidence: high-resolution images are downsampled before encoding, so the model answers from linguistic priors. The standard remedies are expensive: annotated answers (SFT), hand...
Santiram Tiwari, N. Naik, Devbrat Pandey et al.· 0 citations
Vision Language Models (VLMs) should rely on visual evidence that directly determines the correct answer, but supervision for grounding visual reasoning is often expensive to obtain manually or tied to dataset-specific annotation primitives. We instead introduce model-causal visual evidence as an annotation target, def...
Q-CueGraph maps a question and an image representation to budgeted, coordinate-level observations for a frozen reader, and reaches 92% of full-image ANLS on InfographicVQA from about half the image area.
Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer simple visual questions, but often struggle when one question requires several visual judgments. We study this gap with controlled tasks for feature binding, numerosity, spatial relations, and amodal completion, together with a Composite task that combines them. Matched counterf...
Vision-language models (VLMs) can estimate physical quantities such as duration, speed, and acceleration from visual observations, but existing benchmarks primarily assess overall model performance against annotated ground truth. In deployment, a key question is whether an individual prediction can be trusted when its...
Known for his clear and elegant writing style, Bertsekas shaped fields from control and optimization to large-scale computation and artificial intelligence.