When No Answer Is Correct: Diagnosing Absent Answer Detection for MLLMs in Video Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08239v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 15:51:25 GMT
• Title: When No Answer Is Correct: Diagnosing Absent Answer Detection for MLLMs in Video Understanding
• Abstract summary: We study absent answer detection for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in video understanding.<n>We find that MLLMs overwhelmingly select plausible distractors rather than detecting the absent answer.<n>These findings expose a systematic failure in absent answer detection and highlight the need for explicit detection mechanisms in multimodal systems.
• Score: 14.452663025714811
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made substantial advancements in video understanding, yet the reliability of their responses remains underexplored. This work presents a diagnostic study of absent answer detection for MLLMs in video understanding, where the correct answer is deliberately excluded from the candidate set and a reliable model is expected to recognize that no valid option exists. We evaluate the absent answer detection behavior under three settings: multiple-choice questions augmented with an ``None of the Above'' option, open-ended generation with a detection instruction, and standard evaluation without any guidance. Across a diverse set of models and benchmarks, we find that MLLMs overwhelmingly select plausible distractors rather than detecting the absent answer. This failure is more pronounced in temporal reasoning tasks and worsens with denser frame sampling. We further explore chain-of-thought prompting as a mitigation strategy and find that while it substantially improves detection rates, performance remains unsatisfactory, suggesting that prompting-based strategies alone are insufficient to fully address this limitation. These findings expose a systematic failure in absent answer detection and highlight the need for explicit detection mechanisms in multimodal systems.

Related papers

• Knowing When Not to Answer: Evaluating Abstention in Multimodal Reasoning Systems [52.83669998269706]
  Abstention has been studied in text-only settings but remains underexplored multimodally.<n>Current benchmarks either ignore unanswerability or rely on coarse methods that miss realistic failure modes.<n>We introduce MM-AQA, a benchmark that constructs unanswerable instances from answerable ones via transformations along two axes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T09:23:22Z)
• The Anatomy of Uncertainty in LLMs [10.50144444577399]
  We advocate for an uncertainty decomposition framework that dissects uncertainty into three distinct semantic components.<n>Our framework provides a better understanding to audit LLM reliability and detect hallucinations, paving the way for targeted interventions and more trustworthy systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T02:59:40Z)
• Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
  We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z)
• AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions [32.871820908561936]
  AbstentionBench is a benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets.<n>We find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention even for math and science domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T17:57:30Z)
• Hidden in Plain Sight: Reasoning in Underspecified and Misspecified Scenarios for Multimodal LLMs [28.913007638707427]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:47:28Z)
• Forensics-Bench: A Comprehensive Forgery Detection Benchmark Suite for Large Vision Language Models [53.55128042938329]
  Forensics-Bench is a new forgery detection evaluation benchmark suite.<n>It comprises 63,292 meticulously curated multi-choice visual questions, covering 112 unique forgery detection types.<n>We conduct thorough evaluations on 22 open-sourced LVLMs and 3 proprietary models GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T09:21:44Z)
• Rethinking LLM Uncertainty: A Multi-Agent Approach to Estimating Black-Box Model Uncertainty [47.95943057892318]
  Quantifying uncertainty in black-box LLMs is vital for reliable responses and scalable oversight.<n>We introduce DiverseAgentEntropy, a novel, theoretically-grounded method employing multi-agent interaction for uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:52:40Z)
• ELOQ: Resources for Enhancing LLM Detection of Out-of-Scope Questions [52.33835101586687]
  We study out-of-scope questions, where the retrieved document appears semantically similar to the question but lacks the necessary information to answer it.<n>We propose a guided hallucination-based approach ELOQ to automatically generate a diverse set of out-of-scope questions from post-cutoff documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T16:11:29Z)
• 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)

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.