Mechanistic Diagnostics of Spatial Lexical Bias in Multimodal Large Language Model Spatial Reasoning
TL;DR
It is shown that a lightweight LLM-only DPO update on tiny single-object-pair synthetic data mitigates the bias, lifting four-way robust accuracy by up to 100 points on synthetic data, and by 68.1 points on broader evaluation datasets WhatsUp, SpatialMQA-Direct, and VSR.
Abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) remain unreliable on spatial multiple-choice questions, and their failures are often attributed to poorly attended visual information. We identify a complementary failure mode, spatial lexical bias: a spatial relation word added to the answer options can act as a lexical-semantic distractor that draws the model's decision toward that option. Using nine open-weight MLLMs, we show that this phenomenon is widespread. We then isolate diagnostic cases in which a model answers a binary spatial question correctly yet consistently chooses a newly added third spatial option, which we call binary-stable but ternary-fragile cases. Leveraging mechanistic interpretability tools on these cases, we find that the failure arises on the language side rather than the visual side: visual attention analyses and residual-stream probes show the correct spatial relation remains internally available, while irrelevant-option controls, activation patching, and sparse component interventions trace the bias to specific LLM-side channels and neurons. Accordingly, we show that a lightweight LLM-only DPO update on tiny single-object-pair synthetic data mitigates the bias, lifting four-way robust accuracy by up to 100 points on synthetic data, and by 68.0, 32.6, and 20.1 points on broader evaluation datasets WhatsUp, SpatialMQA-Direct, and VSR.