analiza aiqbench
This research introduces PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools to rigorously evaluate whether vision-language models can overcome category priors using localized visual evidence like crops and bounding boxes. The findings reveal that while tool-augmented inputs improve grounding in specific scenarios, many models still default to language-based assumptions even when contradictory pixel data is explicitly provided. This highlights the persistent challenge of achieving true visual grounding versus relying on learned linguistic shortcuts within agentic systems.
Seeing What Is Actually There: PriVE-Bench and PriVE-Tools for Counterfactual Evaluation of Agentic Visual Evidence in VLMs
arXiv:2607.16311v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself. Counterfactual images provide a natural diagnostic setting for this failure mode: when visible evidence contradicts what is usually true, a grounded model should answer from the pixels, while a prior-following model will produce a canonical but visually incorrect response. However, existing counterfactual benchmarks mainly ask whether such prior-following behavior exists. In this paper, we ask a further question motivated by the rise of tool-augmented and agentic vision systems: can additional visual evidence views help VLMs reason against their priors? We introduce PriVE-Bench, a Prior-vs-Visual Evidence Benchmark that uses paired original and counterfactual images to distinguish visually grounded answers from prior-consistent errors. We further introduce PriVE-Tools, a controlled agentic-vision-inspired extension that evaluates whether tool-derived visual evidence -- including bounding boxes, crops, zoom panels, and contours -- improves grounding under the same counterfactual conflicts. Across open- and closed-source VLMs, we compare raw, paired-image, and tool-conditioned inputs using accuracy, prior-following error rate, and other-response rate. Our results show that visual evidence tools can help in some settings, especially when models can use localized evidence effectively, but they are not a universal remedy: several models continue to follow language and category priors even when relevant visual evidence is explicitly provided.
Abstract:Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself. Counterfactual images provide a natural diagnostic setting for this failure mode: when visible evidence contradicts what is usually true, a grounded model should answer from the pixels, while a prior-following model will produce a canonical but visually incorrect response. However, existing counterfactual benchmarks mainly ask whether such prior-following behavior exists. In this paper, we ask a further question motivated by the rise of tool-augmented and agentic vision systems: can additional visual evidence views help VLMs reason against their priors? We introduce PriVE-Bench, a Prior-vs-Visual Evidence Benchmark that uses paired original and counterfactual images to distinguish visually grounded answers from prior-consistent errors. We further introduce PriVE-Tools, a controlled agentic-vision-inspired extension that evaluates whether tool-derived visual evidence -- including bounding boxes, crops, zoom panels, and contours -- improves grounding under the same counterfactual conflicts. Across open- and closed-source VLMs, we compare raw, paired-image, and tool-conditioned inputs using accuracy, prior-following error rate, and other-response rate. Our results show that visual evidence tools can help in some settings, especially when models can use localized evidence effectively, but they are not a universal remedy: several models continue to follow language and category priors even when relevant visual evidence is explicitly provided.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.16311 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2607.16311v1 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.16311 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 316 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · 6 aug. 2026

Academia is for Ambition — Alex Zhang, MIT
Latent Space · 2 oct. 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026