GridVQA-X: A Framework for Evaluating Multimodal Explainability Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14740v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 17:18:24 GMT
• Title: GridVQA-X: A Framework for Evaluating Multimodal Explainability Methods
• Abstract summary: We introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability.<n>Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations.<n>Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts.
• Score: 20.57926775700787
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures: $M_{\text{pure}}$, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and $M_{\text{spur}}$, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.

Related papers

• Integrating Fine-Grained Audio-Visual Evidence for Robust Multimodal Emotion Reasoning [9.470507126417292]
  We introduce SABER-LLM, a framework designed for robust multimodal reasoning.<n>First, we construct SABER, a large-scale emotion reasoning dataset comprising 600K video clips.<n>Second, we propose the structured evidence decomposition paradigm, which enforces a "perceive-then-reason" separation between evidence extraction and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T10:03:26Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• Multi-Path Collaborative Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning [54.8518809800168]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly advanced the problem-solving capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Recent methods attempt to address this by generating soft abstract tokens to enable reasoning in a continuous semantic space.<n>We propose Multi-Path Perception Policy Optimization (M3PO), a novel reinforcement learning framework that explicitly injects collective insights into the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T10:05:46Z)
• ROVER: Benchmarking Reciprocal Cross-Modal Reasoning for Omnimodal Generation [79.17352367219736]
  ROVER tests the use of one modality to guide, verify, or refine outputs in the other.<n>ROVER is a human-annotated benchmark that explicitly targets reciprocal cross-modal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T02:27:46Z)
• Explaining multimodal LLMs via intra-modal token interactions [55.27436637894534]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse vision-language tasks, yet their internal decision-making mechanisms remain insufficiently understood.<n>We propose enhancing interpretability by leveraging intra-modal interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T14:39:13Z)
• MultiSHAP: A Shapley-Based Framework for Explaining Cross-Modal Interactions in Multimodal AI Models [5.011371514152517]
  Multimodal AI models have achieved impressive performance in tasks that require integrating information from multiple modalities, such as vision and language.<n>How to explain cross-modal interactions in multimodal AI models remains a major challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T12:19:18Z)
• Rethinking Explainability in the Era of Multimodal AI [9.57008593971486]
  multimodal AI systems have become ubiquitous and achieved remarkable performance across high-stakes applications.<n>Most existing explainability techniques remain unimodal, generating modality-specific feature attributions, concepts, or circuit traces in isolation.<n>This paper argues that such unimodal explanations systematically misrepresent and fail to capture the cross-modal influence that drives multimodal model decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T03:08:29Z)
• 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)
• Prototype-based Aleatoric Uncertainty Quantification for Cross-modal Retrieval [139.21955930418815]
  Cross-modal Retrieval methods build similarity relations between vision and language modalities by jointly learning a common representation space. However, the predictions are often unreliable due to the Aleatoric uncertainty, which is induced by low-quality data, e.g., corrupt images, fast-paced videos, and non-detailed texts. We propose a novel Prototype-based Aleatoric Uncertainty Quantification (PAU) framework to provide trustworthy predictions by quantifying the uncertainty arisen from the inherent data ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T09:41:19Z)
• Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models [94.70184390935661]
  We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T07:51:19Z)

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.