Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research exposes a critical flaw in open-source Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which often prioritize linguistic priors over visual evidence when processing counter-intuitive scenes. The study reveals that while Chain-of-Thought reasoning can help, it introduces latency and causes models to reject valid visual data that violates common-sense physical laws. Ultimately, the findings highlight the necessity of targeted fine-tuning and structured prompting to align model behavior with actual visual inputs rather than statistical text patterns.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2601.07737v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in mainstream visual understanding tasks, but their ability to process action scenes that contradict everyday common sense remains undertested. To address this gap, we introduce CAIT, a benchmark comprising 400 high-fidelity synthetic scenes focused on counter-intuitive visual actions, such as ``a rabbit is chasing a tiger'', where visual evidence explicitly contradicts common-sense expectations. We evaluate human, leading proprietary models (e.g., Claude and Gemini), and 14 representative open-source MLLMs. Humans achieve near-perfect performance (around 0.95 accuracy) and proprietary models demonstrate robust understanding (achieving up to 0.88 accuracy), standard open-source instruction-tuned models perform at the chance level. Further analysis demonstrates that this failure is driven by a strong language prior: rather than trusting the visual input, they automatically override the anomalous visual signals with statistically common text descriptions. Although introducing Chain-of-Thought reasoning mechanisms can improve accuracy, it significantly slows down the response and generates a new failure mode: models overthink the scenario and refuse to accept the actual visual content simply because it violates real-world physical laws. Finally, we demonstrate that targeted fine-tuning and structured prompting can effectively mitigate this reliance on language priors, enabling open-source models to accurately ground their reasoning in actual visual evidence.

Title:Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes

Abstract:Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in mainstream visual understanding tasks, but their ability to process action scenes that contradict everyday common sense remains undertested. To address this gap, we introduce CAIT, a benchmark comprising 400 high-fidelity synthetic scenes focused on counter-intuitive visual actions, such as ``a rabbit is chasing a tiger'', where visual evidence explicitly contradicts common-sense expectations. We evaluate human, leading proprietary models (e.g., Claude and Gemini), and 14 representative open-source MLLMs. Humans achieve near-perfect performance (around 0.95 accuracy) and proprietary models demonstrate robust understanding (achieving up to 0.88 accuracy), standard open-source instruction-tuned models perform at the chance level. Further analysis demonstrates that this failure is driven by a strong language prior: rather than trusting the visual input, they automatically override the anomalous visual signals with statistically common text descriptions. Although introducing Chain-of-Thought reasoning mechanisms can improve accuracy, it significantly slows down the response and generates a new failure mode: models overthink the scenario and refuse to accept the actual visual content simply because it violates real-world physical laws. Finally, we demonstrate that targeted fine-tuning and structured prompting can effectively mitigate this reliance on language priors, enabling open-source models to accurately ground their reasoning in actual visual evidence.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2601.07737 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2601.07737v3 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.07737 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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 · 314 words

Related coverage