Hidden in Plain Sight: Probing Implicit Reasoning in Multimodal Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00258v1
• Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 21:47:28 GMT
• Title: Hidden in Plain Sight: Probing Implicit Reasoning in Multimodal Language Models
• Authors: Qianqi Yan, Hongquan Li, Shan Jiang, Yang Zhao, Xinze Guan, Ching-Chen Kuo, Xin Eric Wang,
• Abstract summary: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in open-ended, real-world environments.<n>This paper presents a systematic analysis of how current MLLMs handle implicit reasoning scenarios.<n>We find that models frequently fail to surface hidden issues, even when they possess the necessary perceptual and reasoning skills.
• Score: 21.698247799954654
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in open-ended, real-world environments where inputs are messy, underspecified, and not always trustworthy. Unlike curated benchmarks, these settings frequently involve instructions that refer to missing objects or contradictory facts, rely on ambiguous references, or request infeasible actions. In such cases, success hinges not on task execution alone, but on a model's ability to detect when something is silently wrong. This paper presents a systematic analysis of how current MLLMs handle such implicit reasoning scenarios: cases where the flaw is not explicitly stated but must be inferred from context. Using a curated diagnostic suite spanning four categories of real-world failure modes, we evaluate six MLLMs, including o3 and GPT-4o, and find that models frequently fail to surface hidden issues, even when they possess the necessary perceptual and reasoning skills. Explicit prompting reveals that the underlying capabilities exist but are often suppressed in favor of user compliance. We further show that simple inference-time interventions, such as cautious persona prompting and, in particular, requiring a clarifying question, can dramatically recover performance. Our findings highlight a persistent gap between reasoning competence and behavioral compliance in current MLLMs and suggest practical strategies for making these models more trustworthy in underconstrained environments.

Related papers

• Can Large Multimodal Models Actively Recognize Faulty Inputs? A Systematic Evaluation Framework of Their Input Scrutiny Ability [10.607081850023286]
  We introduce the Input Scrutiny Ability Evaluation Framework (ISEval), which encompasses seven categories of flawed premises and three evaluation metrics.<n>Most models struggle to actively detect flawed textual premises without guidance.<n>These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LMMs' proactive verification of input validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T02:13:46Z)
• Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models [11.379764847748378]
  Large language models (LLMs) often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs.<n>This emphasizes the significance of possessing the textbfPremise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises.<n>We introduce the textbfPremise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:49:44Z)
• Exploring LLM Reasoning Through Controlled Prompt Variations [0.9217021281095907]
  We evaluate how well state-of-the-art models maintain logical consistency and correctness when confronted with four categories of prompt perturbations.<n>Our experiments, conducted on thirteen open-source and closed-source LLMs, reveal that introducing irrelevant context within the model's context window significantly degrades performance.<n>Certain perturbations inadvertently trigger chain-of-thought-like reasoning behaviors, even without explicit prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T20:18:50Z)
• Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning (MMIR): A New Benchmark for Multimodal Reasoning Models [26.17300490736624]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are predominantly trained and tested on consistent visual-textual inputs.<n>We propose the Multimodal Inconsistency Reasoning benchmark to assess MLLMs' ability to detect and reason about semantic mismatches.<n>We evaluate six state-of-the-art MLLMs, showing that models with dedicated multimodal reasoning capabilities, such as o1, substantially outperform their counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T01:52:37Z)
• Calling a Spade a Heart: Gaslighting Multimodal Large Language Models via Negation [65.92001420372007]
  This paper systematically evaluates state-of-the-art MLLMs across diverse benchmarks.<n>We introduce the first benchmark GaslightingBench, specifically designed to evaluate the vulnerability of MLLMs to negation arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T10:37:48Z)
• FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows" [74.7488607599921]
  FaithEval is a benchmark to evaluate the faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) in contextual scenarios.<n>FaithEval comprises 4.9K high-quality problems in total, validated through a rigorous four-stage context construction and validation framework.<n>Our study reveals that even state-of-the-art models often struggle to remain faithful to the given context, and that larger models do not necessarily exhibit improved faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T06:27:53Z)
• MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries? [70.77691645678804]
  Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. We identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T23:26:07Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Semantic Density: Uncertainty Quantification for Large Language Models through Confidence Measurement in Semantic Space [14.715989394285238]
  Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) do not have an inherent functionality to provide the users with an uncertainty/confidence metric for each response it generates. A new framework is proposed in this paper to address these issues. Semantic density extracts uncertainty/confidence information for each response from a probability distribution perspective in semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T17:13:49Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities.<n>If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information.<n>To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.