Mirage Probes: How Vision Models Fake Visual Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13870v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 19:51:44 GMT
• Title: Mirage Probes: How Vision Models Fake Visual Understanding
• Abstract summary: Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer image-based questions confidently, and often correctly, even when no image is provided.<n>We show that mirage behavior is linearly decodable from internal activations across residual stream, post-attention, and attention-head sites.
• Score: 13.299409525312491
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer image-based questions confidently, and often correctly, even when no image is provided. This mirage behavior inflates benchmark scores without reflecting visual grounding. Prior work treats this as a single failure mode. We argue it is two. Using Mirage Probes, a contrastive probing framework that pairs paraphrased question variants with matched mirage and non-mirage labels on the same image, we show that mirage behavior is linearly decodable from internal activations across residual stream, MLP, post-attention, and attention-head sites in two open-source VLMs. We demonstrate that a Naive Bayes text baseline cannot recover this signal, ruling out surface lexical confounds. Cross-benchmark separability patterns, together with a novel Prior Harnessing Index (PHI) measuring how much a model can answer from text alone, expose two distinct regimes: textual biases, where the model answers from language priors without engaging visual representations, and spurious images, where it constructs false visual content in latent space and answers as if grounded. The distinction has direct mitigation consequences: text-distribution cleaning can address the first regime but cannot reach the second, since spurious-image mirages live in the model's visual representations rather than its text. Faithful visual grounding will require interventions at the representational level.

Related papers

• Improving Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Perception Verified Self-Training [3.443084677278651]
  We propose a perception-verified self-training framework that enforces visually grounded reasoning.<n>First, our method employs a CoT template that disentangles perception from reasoning, enabling independent verification of visual understanding.<n>Using caption verification together with answer correctness, we partition the data into three subsets: easy (correct caption and conclusion), medium (correct caption but incorrect conclusion), and hard (incorrect caption)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T17:33:07Z)
• VisualFLIP: Do Predictions Depend on Task-Critical Visual Evidence in Multimodal Reasoning? [79.44137632338062]
  When a multimodal large language model answers a visual reasoning question correctly, is the prediction actually supported by the task-critical visual evidence?<n>We introduce VisualFLIP, a paired benchmark with 1,374 images arranged as same-question pairs across cardinality, attribute, spatial, and logic tasks.<n>We evaluate 24 MLLMs with pair accuracy, which requires solving both sides of a pair, and Collapse Rate (CR), which measures how often a model that solves at least one side repeats the same non-empty answer for both images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T22:06:07Z)
• Diagnosing Visual Ignorance in Vision-Language Models [29.2851901986069]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently rely on language priors, producing confident answers that are weakly grounded in visual evidence.<n>In this work, we study language-prior reliance from both mechanistic and behavioral perspectives.<n>We find that language-prior reliance is a systematic routing failure affecting both model internals and benchmark validity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T04:16:01Z)
• Real Images, Worse Judgments: Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Concreteness and Imagery [21.95600321802019]
  We study whether vision-language models can distinguish useful visual evidence from incidental image context in lexical judgments.<n>We find that real-image contexts do not yield consistent gains and often hurt alignment with human ratings.<n>Our findings suggest that current instruction-tuned VLMs need better calibration of when visual context should inform lexical judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T17:24:59Z)
• Can Unified Generation and Understanding Models Maintain Semantic Equivalence Across Different Output Modalities? [61.533560295383786]
  Unified Multimodal Large Language Models (U-MLLMs) integrate understanding and generation within a single architecture.<n>We observe that U-MLLMs fail to maintain semantic equivalence when required to render the same results in the image modality.<n>We introduce VGUBench, a framework to decouple reasoning logic from generation fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T06:23:56Z)
• When Visualizing is the First Step to Reasoning: MIRA, a Benchmark for Visual Chain-of-Thought [118.71264263478083]
  We propose MIRA, a new benchmark designed to evaluate models in scenarios where generating intermediate visual images is essential for successful reasoning.<n>We include 546 multimodal problems, annotated with intermediate visual images and final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T18:00:51Z)
• BLINK-Twice: You see, but do you observe? A Reasoning Benchmark on Visual Perception [67.89135437537179]
  We introduce BLINK-Twice, a vision-centric reasoning benchmark grounded in challenging perceptual tasks.<n>Instead of relying on external knowledge, our tasks require models to reason from visual content alone.<n>Compared to prior perception benchmarks, it moves beyond shallow perception and requires fine-grained observation and analytical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T13:14:13Z)
• VLMs have Tunnel Vision: Evaluating Nonlocal Visual Reasoning in Leading VLMs [18.349695067647012]
  Visual Language Models excel at complex visual tasks such as VQA and chart understanding, yet recent work suggests they struggle with simple tests.<n>We present an evaluation that tests vision-language models' capacity for nonlocal visual reasoning.<n>Our findings show that despite gains in raw visual acuity, current models lack core visual reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T23:15:52Z)
• v1: Learning to Point Visual Tokens for Multimodal Grounded Reasoning [27.688428439248607]
  We introduce v1, a lightweight extension that enables active visual referencing through a simple point-and-copy approach.<n>This allows the model to identify relevant image patches and copy their embeddings back into the reasoning stream.<n>Our pointing strategy lets the MLLM directly select image patches using their semantic representations as keys, keeping perceptual evidence embedded in the same space as the model's reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T19:30:47Z)
• Revisiting the Role of Language Priors in Vision-Language Models [90.0317841097143]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) are applied to a variety of visual understanding tasks in a zero-shot fashion, without any fine-tuning. We study $textitgenerative VLMs$ that are trained for next-word generation given an image. We explore their zero-shot performance on the illustrative task of image-text retrieval across 8 popular vision-language benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T19:19:43Z)
• Siamese Image Modeling for Self-Supervised Vision Representation Learning [73.78790119050056]
  Self-supervised learning (SSL) has delivered superior performance on a variety of downstream vision tasks. Two main-stream SSL frameworks have been proposed, i.e., Instance Discrimination (ID) and Masked Image Modeling (MIM) We propose Siamese Image Modeling (SIM), which predicts the dense representations of an augmented view.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-02T17:59:58Z)

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.