When Thinking Hurts: Epistemic Signals in the Reasoning Chains of Visual Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08059v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 02:19:16 GMT
• Title: When Thinking Hurts: Epistemic Signals in the Reasoning Chains of Visual Language Models
• Abstract summary: We provide the first three-family empirical characterisation of answer entropy behaviour in visual language models (VLMs)<n>We find three qualitatively distinct patterns: Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking shows complete collapse; GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking shows no collapse; and InternVL3-8B shows selective thinking.<n>Across all three thinking-mode models, thinking chain entropy outperforms answer entropy on the subset where chains are generated.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Uncertainty quantification for visual language models (VLMs) conventionally targets the answer token distribution. We provide the first three-family empirical characterisation of answer entropy behaviour in thinking-mode VLMs. Running four models on identical POPE adversarial samples, we find three qualitatively distinct patterns: Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking shows complete collapse (ans H AUROC = 0.492); GLM-4.1V-9B-Thinking shows no collapse (0.716); and InternVL3-8B shows selective thinking (chains on only 50% of samples, ans H = 0.675 full / 0.602 thinking-only). Across all three thinking-mode models, thinking chain entropy outperforms answer entropy on the subset where chains are generated (0.647, 0.759, 0.608 vs. 0.492, 0.716, 0.602 respectively), suggesting chain signals are the more reliable predictor whenever chains are present. This holds strongly for Qwen and GLM, but with only marginal and statistically unreliable advantage for InternVL3 (n_FP = 17). A 300-sample VQAv2 pilot confirms chain entropy (0.680) outperforms answer entropy (0.595) on VQAv2 questions, with the gap largest for free-form answers (0.733 vs. 0.467). On harder reasoning tasks (HallusionBench) both Qwen models show moderate signal (approx. 0.64), consistent with incomplete pre-commitment on difficult questions. We additionally document structured abstention affecting 12-22% of queries with asymmetry toward absent-object queries, and a practical abstention gate raising accuracy from 71.0% to 93.8% at 62.7% coverage with no additional inference cost.

Related papers

• Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure [51.736723807086385]
  Population-marginal agreement is evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.<n>On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T10:22:22Z)
• Distribution-First Population Simulation: Collapse, Calibration, and Recall in Non-WEIRD LLM Persona Modeling [0.0]
  Synthetic-population tools run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent.<n>We show that this paradigm has a basic failure mode, and we set a distribution-first corrective against it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T15:45:57Z)
• Evaluation Awareness Is Not One Capability: Evidence from Open Language Models [1.758143872501506]
  Safety benchmarks assume that test-condition behavior predicts deployment behavior, an assumption that fails if models detect evaluation cues and adapt.<n>This opens a gap between benchmark performance and deployment behavior.<n>We characterize this evaluation awareness through eight experiments across 37 open-weight models and seven families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T16:48:43Z)
• Automated Proving of Shannon-Type Entropy Inequalities via Fine-Tuned Language Models and Guided Tree Search [50.16356451328644]
  Proving Shannon-type entropy inequalities is a fundamental task in information theory.<n>We investigate whether small-scale large language models, fine-tuned on atomic proof steps, can automate this process.<n>We show that GPT-5.5 solves 1.7% samples under zero-shot prompting while Psitip solves 33.3% samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T05:43:12Z)
• How Independent are Large Language Models? A Statistical Framework for Auditing Behavioral Entanglement and Reweighting Verifier Ensembles [46.63622714488747]
  Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement.<n>In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures.<n>We develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T23:32:06Z)
• The Alignment Tax: Response Homogenization in Aligned LLMs and Its Implications for Uncertainty Estimation [1.8345614451086532]
  RLHF-aligned language models exhibit response homogenization on TruthfulQA.<n>40-79% of questions produce a single semantic cluster across 10 i.i.d. samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T09:35:15Z)
• Edge Reliability Gap in Vision-Language Models: Quantifying Failure Modes of Compressed VLMs Under Visual Corruption [0.0]
  The rapid compression of large vision-language models for edge deployment raises an underexplored question: do compact models fail differently, not merely more often?<n>This study compares a 7-billion- parameter quantised VLM (Qwen2.5-VL-7B, 4-bit NF4) against a 500-million- parameter FP16 model (SmolVLM2-500M) across 4,000 samples from VQAv2 and COCO Captions.<n>A three-category error taxonomy (Object Blindness, Semantic Drift, Prior Bias) is applied as a diagnostic framework. Confidence calibration is measured via Expected Error (ECE) using mean token probability
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T10:14:40Z)
• Entropy trajectory shape predicts LLM reasoning reliability: A diagnostic study of uncertainty dynamics in chain-of-thought [0.0]
  We study whether the shape of uncertainty dynamics across reasoning steps--captured by sampling a few answer completions per step--predicts correctness.<n>We introduce entropy-trajectory monotonicity: a chain is monotone if its per-step answer-distribution entropy decreases every step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T14:17:16Z)
• Quantile Advantage Estimation for Entropy-Safe Reasoning [44.192277495613695]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) strengthens LLM reasoning, but training often oscillates between entropy collapse and entropy explosion<n>We trace both hazards to the mean baseline used in value-free RL, which improperly penalizes negative-advantage samples under reward outliers.<n>We propose Quantile Advantage Estimation (QAE), replacing the mean with a group-wise K-quantile baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T17:37:52Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [51.21714389639417]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting boosts Language Models' (LM) performance on a gamut of reasoning tasks. We propose Faithful CoT, a reasoning framework involving two stages: Translation and Problem Solving. This guarantees that the reasoning chain provides a faithful explanation of the final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T03:04:26Z)

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.