aiqbench analysis
This research provides a rigorous Bayesian framework for understanding how vision-language models integrate conflicting textual and visual evidence, effectively modeling them as biased observers with specific prior beliefs. By separating evidence strength from integration bias, the study offers a predictive account that generalizes across unseen input conditions without requiring model refitting. This work advances fundamental machine learning theory by clarifying the mechanisms behind modality preferences in multimodal systems.
Vision-Language Models Integrate Conflicting Evidence Like Biased Bayesian Observers
arXiv:2610.19407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models must reconcile conflicting text and images. Prior work has characterized the resulting behavior in terms of modality biases--e.g., a "blind faith in text"--but why preferences vary across models, domains, and input conditions remains unclear. We develop a predictive account from a Bayesian perspective, positing that VLMs combine conditionally independent evidence from each modality with prior beliefs, subject to modality-specific biases. The resulting two-parameter cue combination model accurately predicts VLM preferences under unseen combinations of input degradation and transfers to new forms of unreliability without refitting. Separating evidence strength from integration bias explains how VLMs can follow text even while weighting visual evidence more heavily, reconciling reports of text and vision dominance under a single combination rule.
Abstract:Vision-language models must reconcile conflicting text and images. Prior work has characterized the resulting behavior in terms of modality biases--e.g., a "blind faith in text"--but why preferences vary across models, domains, and input conditions remains unclear. We develop a predictive account from a Bayesian perspective, positing that VLMs combine conditionally independent evidence from each modality with prior beliefs, subject to modality-specific biases. The resulting two-parameter cue combination model accurately predicts VLM preferences under unseen combinations of input degradation and transfers to new forms of unreliability without refitting. Separating evidence strength from integration bias explains how VLMs can follow text even while weighting visual evidence more heavily, reconciling reports of text and vision dominance under a single combination rule.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2610.19407 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.19407v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19407 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 · 222 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · Jul 24, 2026