Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research investigates how Vision Language Models degrade in Visual Question Answering tasks when confronted with questions violating Grice's conversational maxims, highlighting a distinct gap between human pragmatic reasoning and AI interpretation. The study reveals that while humans expend less cognitive effort resolving these ambiguities, VLMs suffer significant accuracy drops regardless of whether the violations are induced by humans or generated by other AIs. These findings offer critical insights into the robustness and reliability of current multimodal models under non-ideal conversational conditions.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Evaluating VQA in Vision Language Models using Cooperative Principles

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.02878v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We evaluate the performance of Vision Language Models in Visual Question Answering (VQA) when questions violate Grice's maxims. To do this, we use VLMs to generate question modifiers that add non-essential, ambiguous or false information and show that in the presence of such violations, the VLMs that we evaluate (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Llava) show diminished performance. Further, we empirically show the difference between how humans reason pragmatically compared to VLMs, and the difference in VLM reasoning when it resolves violations that are human-induced compared to those that are AI-generated. Finally, we show that human cognitive effort (measured through time-on-task in an experiment) is lower for resolving VLM-induced violations, but VLMs themselves perform less accurately in such cases.

Abstract:We evaluate the performance of Vision Language Models in Visual Question Answering (VQA) when questions violate Grice's maxims. To do this, we use VLMs to generate question modifiers that add non-essential, ambiguous or false information and show that in the presence of such violations, the VLMs that we evaluate (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Llava) show diminished performance. Further, we empirically show the difference between how humans reason pragmatically compared to VLMs, and the difference in VLM reasoning when it resolves violations that are human-induced compared to those that are AI-generated. Finally, we show that human cognitive effort (measured through time-on-task in an experiment) is lower for resolving VLM-induced violations, but VLMs themselves perform less accurately in such cases.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.02878 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.02878v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.02878 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 213 words

Related coverage