A tree-structured framework is proposed that organizes failures in knowledge-intensive visual question answering into model-specific operational outcomes that support attribution-guided routing to targeted interventions, including image repair, entity support, question rewriting, and factual evidence.
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) can recognize entities in clear images yet still fail when answering questions that require factual knowledge beyond what is directly observable. Prior work has either examined individual failure modes in isolation or treated incorrect answers as monolithic, binary failures. We propose a tree-structured framework that organizes failures in knowledge-intensive visual question answering into model-specific operational outcomes. Across two datasets and four VLMs, we observe consistent distributions of operational outcomes: some failures occur before entity recognition, while others persist after the relevant entity is recognized. Visual token representations are most informative for recognition-related decisions. Prompt hidden states predict answer success more effectively, although factual-access attribution remains difficult and exhibits only a weak signal. These pre-generation signals support attribution-guided routing to targeted interventions, including image repair, entity support, question rewriting, and factual evidence.
An Operation-centric mechanistic framework is introduced that decomposes VLM failures by both the reasoning operation where they originate and the internal computational pathway through which they propagate and provides a principled basis for targeted diagnosis of VLM failures in multimedia reasoning.
Vision Language Models (VLMs) are well known for hallucinating non-existent objects in images. Objects with missing parts present a unique challenge for VLMs, stemming from both real-world knowledge bias and the scarcity of such images in training data. We present MissingBench-Verified, a benchmark designed to evaluate a specific and practically relevant scenario: when vision-language models fail to recognize that an essential component of an object has been removed. Across ten leading models, we observe consistent and significant failure rates that persist even when external tool evidence explicitly contradicts the model's visual perception. We further ask whether granting models access to image processing tools (e.g., cropping, contrast adjustment) enables autonomous inspection to resolve these failures. We find that existing mitigation strategies, including tool-assisted verification, autonomous visual reasoning, longer reasoning durations, and fine-tuning on an easier dataset, provide negligible improvement, indicating that this failure mode cannot be addressed through current prompting or post-hoc correction techniques. Our findings highlight a fundamental limitation of current VLM for inspection and monitoring tasks and underscore the need for architectural or training-level interventions that enable models to override internal expectations when confronted with contradictory evidence.
W. Guo, Qi Qian, Shiyu Zhou 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
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.
Vision-language models (VLMs) frequently fail at visual change reasoning, even when their vision encoders contain sufficient information. We observe that correct VLM outputs tend to contain explicit verbal evidence (object names, colors, spatial locations) that supports the claimed change, while incorrect outputs often lack such evidence. We propose SAVER (Selective Auditing of Verbal Evidence for Error Recovery), a lightweight, rule-based method that parses VLM responses for this evidence and triggers structured reprompting only when evidence is missing or inconsistent. Across three change detection benchmarks and four VLMs, SAVER significantly improves accuracy on tasks where errors stem from the model failing to articulate what it saw (expression failures), with gains up to +25.8% on CLEVR-Change. The evidence patterns can also be generated by an LLM in a single call, matching the hand-tuned gate on CLEVR-Change. Ablation experiments confirm that the evidence gate, not reprompting alone, drives the improvement.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate robot manipulation outcomes, but existing benchmarks offer limited evidence of cross-domain generalization. We introduce FailBench, a benchmark for robot failure detection comprising 2,197 manipulation attempts across 14 public sources (12 real-world, 2 simulated). In FailBench, 75% of failures occur naturally, and six real-world sources come from non-failure-detection datasets. Evaluating 13 VLM-based detectors, we find the best model achieves only 0.77 mean balanced accuracy. Notably, models fine-tuned for failure detection consistently underperform general-purpose VLMs and their own pretrained baselines. Performance depends heavily on required visual evidence: models approach saturation when outcomes depend on observable object motion, but degrade to near-chance (<0.60 balanced accuracy) on contact-intensive assembly tasks. Error analysis reveals a systematic bias toward predicting success under ambiguous evidence, which persists even with increased reasoning effort. Finally, we show that input-level intervention--spatially localizing and cropping outcome-relevant regions--improves the top detector by 2.4 percentage points without extra training.
