irection patching is addressed with direction patching, a class-conditioned causal intervention applied across layers, token positions, and prompt formats to reframe the encoding-grounding gap as a problem of conditional transport in VLMs.
Abstract
Vision-language models are known to encode spatial information in their hidden states, yet often fail to use it when answering. However, it remains unclear when and where this encoded information reaches the answer. We address this with direction patching, a class-conditioned causal intervention applied across layers, token positions, and prompt formats. Using spatial-ID directions constructed following prior encoding evidence, we find that causal influence on answer logits emerges only at mid-to-deep depths. Text chain-of-thought suppresses immediate object-word argmax-level transport in most models, while visually grounded prompts keep it open. Positive target-logit gain can remain below the argmax threshold, and transport can re-emerge at the final prefix token or at the answer step in deeper layers. Across the ten VLMs we study, these local effects form descriptive transport patterns. Complementary experiments characterize how these patterns shift across datasets, attributes, and encoding amplitudes. Together, these results reframe the encoding-grounding gap as a problem of conditional transport in VLMs.
Vision-language models (VLMs) are expected to reason about physical space -- which object is closer, what lies behind what, and how objects are arranged in 3D -- yet they still struggle with such spatial judgments. A natural remedy is to show the model a depth map, but we find that this can make performance worse. We show that depth is not absent: it reaches the language model, but becomes difficult to access for downstream reasoning, while rendered pseudo-depth maps act as noisy auxiliary images that frozen VLMs cannot easily regulate. We propose Depth-Ordinal Prompting (DOP), a training-free method that converts monocular depth into a single question-targeted ordinal text cue at the queried objects, without adding a depth image, training a module, injecting features, or using labels. Our key finding is form dependence: the same depth signal can hurt when shown as an image but help when told as text.Across benchmarks, models, and depth estimators, DOP improves spatial reasoning when pseudo-depth provides reliable object-level ordering and remains largely neutral in strong original-image regimes. It is also competitive with the strongest training-free depth-prompting alternative while being simpler and more targeted.
Quynh T. N. Vo, Phuc Dao, Cong-Duy Nguyen et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
For the coarse attributes the authors study, MLLMs encode the visual evidence but cannot reliably control their reliance on it, indicating that for the coarse attributes they study, MLLMs cannot reliably control their reliance on it.
Jiaang Li, Chengzu Li, Zhaochong An et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
When visual evidence is occluded or chaotic, models should abstain. In this paper, we show that Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can internally distinguish when abstention is required, but fail to express it anyway. We introduce TRAPSBench, a procedurally generated video benchmark of 1,404 matched physics pairs in which a single targeted change renders the outcome undeterminable from the visual evidence. Furthermore, we introduce Penalized Epistemic Calibration Score (PECS), a new robust metric that requires models to both answer correctly when the outcome is knowable, and abstain when the outcome is not. Across 16 VLMs spanning five families, spontaneous restraint is poor: the best PECS is 0.292. The bottleneck is expression, not perception: linear probes decode answerability from hidden states at up to 0.91 AUROC across physics domains; steering a single-layer void direction causally induces or suppresses abstention. Our results replicate across three open-weight families (Qwen, Gemma, LLaVA). The failure is also more pronounced in visual than textual uncertainty: models detect textual impossibility about 4x more readily than missing visual evidence. Closing this representation--output gap likely requires output-stage interventions.
This work investigates two representative model families, LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen2.5, and provides a token-, layer-, and head-level account of how VLMs transform object grounding into spatial relations, showing that knowing where objects are is not equivalent to knowing how they relate.
Xiwei Liu, Yu-long Li, Xinlin Zhuang et al.· 0 citations
ProVisE (Protocolized Visual Evaluation), a benchmark-agnostic framework that elicits protocol-constrained visual answers from image-generation models and parses them into structured predictions compatible with original metrics, is proposed and revealed, revealing complementary strengths of pixel-space expression and text-based reasoning.
Xu Wang, Kaixiang Yao, Miao Pan et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
Vision-Language Models are commonly evaluated through their final predictions, but understanding whether these decisions are grounded in visual evidence requires tracing how visual information contributes to language-based decisions. With this purpose in mind, we investigate cross-modal information flow in a video-based generative multiple-choice-like setting by applying a layer-wise causal intervention on video-text attention pathways. We target spatial, causal, and temporal visual reasoning. Our results show that visual information is mainly integrated while the model processes the candidate answer options, which serve as the primary textual grounding sites for the final decision. We further show that nouns play an important role as semantic anchors during multimodal enrichment, while verbs are more relevant when temporal relations are processed. Finally, we identify a distinct pattern in temporal reasoning, suggesting that VLMs struggle to reconstruct sequential information across video frames, but we remark that such fragility may also reflect linguistic biases associated with specific temporal expressions used for defining the relation between events within a scene.
Davide Testa, Hugh Mee Wong, Alessandro Lenci et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
