aiqbench analysis
This research identifies a critical failure mode in vision-language models where auxiliary text that aligns with the question but contradicts visual evidence systematically redirects predictions toward specific distractors. The authors introduce the Textual Reliability Ladder to diagnose this issue and propose a training-free inference-time intervention that uses noise-stability steering to counteract these redirection effects. By shifting focus from simple factual correctness to decision-level reliability, this work offers a practical pathway for building more robust tri-modal reasoning systems.
When Helpful Text Hurts: Option-Redirecting Bias in Vision-Language Models
arXiv:2609.32489v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In tri-modal visual question answering (VQA), auxiliary text is commonly used to complement visual and textual inputs, yet its reliability is often uncontrolled. While prior work studies modality conflicts in general, it remains unclear how different types of unreliable auxiliary text affect answer selection under fixed image-question-option contexts. In this work, we show that the most harmful auxiliary text is not necessarily the most factually incorrect, but the one that aligns with the question while contradicting the image and favoring a specific distractor, leading to systematic redirection of model predictions. To isolate this effect, we introduce the Textual Reliability Ladder, a controlled diagnostic protocol that decomposes auxiliary text along three axes: image consistency, question relevance, and option support. Across multiple datasets (ScienceQA, VCR, A-OKVQA, Causal-VidQA) and recent VLMs, we find that such distractor-supporting text induces the largest accuracy drops (up to 53.1%) and concentrates errors on specific incorrect options. To mitigate this failure mode, we propose a training-free inference-time intervention that explicitly counteracts this redirection effect via noise-stability steering and dynamic grounding, reducing redirected errors while largely preserving performance under faithful text. Our results highlight that auxiliary-text reliability must be understood at the decision level, rather than solely through factual correctness, and provide a practical pathway toward more robust tri-modal reasoning.
Abstract:In tri-modal visual question answering (VQA), auxiliary text is commonly used to complement visual and textual inputs, yet its reliability is often uncontrolled. While prior work studies modality conflicts in general, it remains unclear how different types of unreliable auxiliary text affect answer selection under fixed image-question-option contexts. In this work, we show that the most harmful auxiliary text is not necessarily the most factually incorrect, but the one that aligns with the question while contradicting the image and favoring a specific distractor, leading to systematic redirection of model predictions. To isolate this effect, we introduce the Textual Reliability Ladder, a controlled diagnostic protocol that decomposes auxiliary text along three axes: image consistency, question relevance, and option support. Across multiple datasets (ScienceQA, VCR, A-OKVQA, Causal-VidQA) and recent VLMs, we find that such distractor-supporting text induces the largest accuracy drops (up to 53.1%) and concentrates errors on specific incorrect options. To mitigate this failure mode, we propose a training-free inference-time intervention that explicitly counteracts this redirection effect via noise-stability steering and dynamic grounding, reducing redirected errors while largely preserving performance under faithful text. Our results highlight that auxiliary-text reliability must be understood at the decision level, rather than solely through factual correctness, and provide a practical pathway toward more robust tri-modal reasoning.
Accepted at ACM Multimedia 2026 (ACM MM 2026). 25 pages, 16 figures. This arXiv version includes supplementary material
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2609.32489 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.32489v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32489 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3767308.3836232 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
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 · 339 words
Related coverage
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026

AI Futures: Racing to Lose, A sermon
LessWrong · Sep 28, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026
Dyna-2: General Purpose Physical Agents with Hour-Long Autonomy — Jason Ma, Dyna Robotics
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026