Visual Attention Faithfulness in Vision-Language Models is Heterogeneous

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00830v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 07:32:01 GMT
• Title: Visual Attention Faithfulness in Vision-Language Models is Heterogeneous
• Abstract summary: We show that visual attention faithfulness is heterogeneous, manifesting in three distinct processing modes.<n>Human-annotated ground-truth regions satisfy comprehensiveness in only $sim 60$% of cases compared with model attention rankings.
• Score: 13.117582974793672
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Whether attention weights faithfully reflect model reasoning has been actively debated in NLP, yet this question remains largely unexplored for the visual modality in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We address this gap through causal perturbation analysis on current VLMs, evaluating both the comprehensiveness and sufficiency gap of attention-ranked visual tokens. Our analysis reveals that visual attention faithfulness is heterogeneous, manifesting in three distinct processing modes: Faithful-Sufficient, where top-$k$ attention tokens are both necessary and sufficient for prediction; Faithful-Distributed, where they are necessary but broader visual context remains required; and Non-Focal, where no localized attention region is individually necessary while visual information remains an essential trigger for prediction. Furthermore, human-annotated ground-truth regions satisfy comprehensiveness in only $\sim 60$% of cases compared with model attention rankings, revealing systematic divergence between model visual reliance and human intuition. We demonstrate these patterns across both general VQA on VQAv2 and document tasks on VRDU and ChartQA, showing that visual attention faithfulness varies systematically with processing demands and model architectures rather than being uniformly faithful or unfaithful.

Related papers

• 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)
• Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)? [72.2500547961037]
  spatial reasoning is a fundamental capability for vision-language models (VLMs) deployed in real-world environments.<n>We introduce two types of observation challenges: (1) occlusion, which hides target information, and (2) perspective ambiguity, which produces misleading visual cues.<n>For each configuration, we design spatial questions that are answerable under clean observations but require abstention under the introduced challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T20:44:47Z)
• Unveiling the Visual Counting Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models [49.591496870141846]
  This work deconstructs visual counting into three cognitive stages: visual individuation, magnitude awareness, and symbolic mapping.<n>Using synthetic Go boards and linear probes, we demonstrate that visual backbones maintain robust, linearly separable representations of quantity well into the extrapolation regime.<n>We pinpoint the collapse to the symbolic mapping stage, where the model fails to project valid visual magnitudes onto symbolic tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T16:20:29Z)
• Predictive Regularization Against Visual Representation Degradation in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.94288033791346]
  We conduct a detailed diagnostic analysis to unveil a pervasive issue: visual representation degradation in MLLMs.<n>We attribute this phenomenon to a visual sacrifice driven by the singular text-generation objective, where the model compromises its visual fidelity to optimize for answer generation.<n>We propose Predictive Regularization to force degraded intermediate features to predict initial visual features, thereby maintaining the inherent visual attributes of the MLLM's internal representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T13:10:37Z)
• Deeper Thought, Weaker Aim: Understanding and Mitigating Perceptual Impairment during Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models [15.851502442699]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often suffer from perceptual impairments under extended reasoning modes.<n>We identify attention dispersion as the underlying cause: during multi-step reasoning, the model's visual attention becomes scattered and drifts away from question-relevant regions, effectively "losing focus" on the visual input.<n>We propose a training-free Visual Region-Guided Attention (VRGA) framework that selects visual heads based on an entropy-focus criterion and reweights their attention, effectively guiding the model to focus on question-relevant regions during reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T02:21:05Z)
• ViewSpatial-Bench: Evaluating Multi-perspective Spatial Localization in Vision-Language Models [68.46716645478661]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding and reasoning about visual content.<n>Current VLMs excel primarily at egocentric spatial reasoning (from the camera's perspective) but fail to generalize to allocentric viewpoints.<n>We introduce ViewSpatial-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed specifically for multi-viewpoint spatial localization recognition evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:59:26Z)
• Exploring Implicit Visual Misunderstandings in Multimodal Large Language Models through Attention Analysis [21.869968563545736]
  We define implicit visual misunderstanding (IVM), where MLLMs provide correct answers without fully comprehending the visual input.<n>We introduce a scale-agnostic metric, textitattention accuracy, and a novel benchmark for quantifying IVMs.<n>We extend our approach to finer granularities and demonstrate its effectiveness in unimodal scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T17:52:40Z)
• VLM2-Bench: A Closer Look at How Well VLMs Implicitly Link Explicit Matching Visual Cues [34.95077625513563]
  We introduce textbfVLM2-Bench, a benchmark designed to assess whether vision-language models can Visually Link Matching cues.<n> Comprehensive evaluation across twelve VLMs, along with further analysis of various language-side and vision-side prompting methods, leads to a total of eight key findings.<n>We identify critical challenges in models' ability to link visual cues, highlighting a significant performance gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T17:57:50Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• Localization vs. Semantics: Visual Representations in Unimodal and Multimodal Models [57.08925810659545]
  We conduct a comparative analysis of the visual representations in existing vision-and-language models and vision-only models. Our empirical observations suggest that vision-and-language models are better at label prediction tasks. We hope our study sheds light on the role of language in visual learning, and serves as an empirical guide for various pretrained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T05:00:18Z)
• Understanding Attention for Vision-and-Language Tasks [4.752823994295959]
  We conduct a comprehensive analysis on understanding the role of attention alignment by looking into the attention score calculation methods. We also analyse the conditions which attention score calculation mechanism would be more (or less) interpretable. Our analysis is the first of its kind and provides useful insights of the importance of each attention alignment score calculation when applied at the training phase of VL tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-17T06:45:07Z)

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.