Semantics or Structure? Auditing Text Sensitivity in Multimodal Time-Series Forecasting

Multimodal time-series forecasting has emerged as a promising paradigm in which natural-language context is expected to improve predictive performance. Recent multimodal foundation models, including Aurora, as well as early- and late-fusion approaches such as MM-TSFlib and TaTS, report substantial gains over unimodal baselines on the Time-MMD benchmark, attributing these improvements to textual information. However, whether these models are actually sensitive to the semantic content of the text remains unverified. We address this question through controlled text perturbations, attribution analyses, and probes of Aurora's text pathway. On Time-MMD, swapping each row's text for any other real text (empty, constant, within-domain shuffled, or cross-domain) moves mean MSE by less than $0.5\%$ on all three architectures. The improvement reported in the literature is recovered when a co-shipped numeric column is removed without touching text. We conclude that, on this benchmark and within this family of frozen-encoder architectures, text content is not the operative signal behind the reported gains. To support future work on text integration in multimodal foundation models for structured data, we release our perturbation protocol and evaluation harness as a reusable diagnostic toolkit.

Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluation

Preference over model-generated emotion descriptions is emerging as a standard evaluation metric for multimodal emotion understanding, exemplified by the MER2026 MER-Prefer track on EmoPrefer. Such benchmarks assume that predicting the preferred description requires grounded cross-modal understanding of the video. We conduct a systematic shortcut audit of EmoPrefer using content-blind probes. A simple logistic regression using only description length and generator identity, without processing the text, video, or audio, performs comparably to LoRA-finetuned 7B text and audio-visual judges (65.8 versus 66.8 WAF on EmoPrefer-V2). Generator identity is recoverable from description text with 99.5 percent accuracy, every candidate pair contrasts two distinct generators, and the human preference labels agree with a fold-exclusive per-generator win-rate prior on 66 percent of the evaluated pairs. When the human label conflicts with this prior, trained judges still follow the style prior on 63 to 80 percent of the pairs. On a length-matched subset that neutralizes verbosity bias, the tested media configurations yield no statistically significant improvement, while an ODIN-inspired diagnostic that decouples the style shortcut leaves its content head near chance. These results do not imply that human preferences are inherently stylistic or that the descriptions contain no emotional information. Instead, they show that the current scores can be reached without verifying either description against the video. We recommend source-balanced pairing, strict length control, counter-stereotypical sliced reporting, and multi-annotator consensus for future cross-generator evaluations. Code is available at https://github.com/jiabingyang01/EmoPrefer-Audit.

Accuracy Without Grounding: Diagnosing Visual Dependency Dissociation in Video LLM Benchmarks

Benchmark accuracy in video large language models (LLMs) is often treated as evidence of visual understanding. We audit this assumption across twenty models spanning 2-78B parameters and ten architecture families. We introduce the Visual Dependency Gap (VDG), the difference in per-question correctness between original-video and black-screen conditions. Paired McNemar tests on MVBench show that accuracy and visual dependency are separable: models differ on original video (p = 0.0003) but not on black screens (p = 0.53). Across models, task-type rankings are stable: Attribute Perception is strongly visual, whereas Temporal Reasoning approaches the language-only baseline. A diagnostic ladder from black screen to single frame, shuffled frames, and original video reveals that frame diversity supplies most of the visual benefit, while temporal order contributes near-zero accuracy across sixteen open-weight models. An ablation from 0.5 to 24 FPS rules out sparse sampling as the cause. H.264 experiments further show that stable aggregate accuracy conceals bidirectional question-level answer flips. The diagnostic also generalizes to four API-accessed models, whose VDG values range from 0.025 to 0.315. These results motivate VDG as a standard audit for whether video benchmarks measure visually grounded capability. Code is available at https://github.com/JaeLee18/accuracy-without-grounding.

Identifying and Resolving Pitfalls of Knowledge-Based VQA Benchmarks: Auditing, Repairing, and Augmenting

Knowledge-Based Visual Question Answering (KB-VQA) aims to evaluate whether Visual Language Models (VLMs) can retrieve, ground, and reason over external structured knowledge beyond visual evidence. In practice, answer accuracy is widely adopted as the primary evaluation metric, implicitly treating correctness as a proxy for knowledge-grounded reasoning. However, for existing KB-VQA benchmarks, this proxy relies on critical assumptions that are often overlooked and rendered unreliable by benchmark issues: annotated answer must be derivable from the associated knowledge base, question must be well-posed with sufficient constraints, and visual setting must meaningfully require grounded disambiguation. In this work, we show that these assumptions are systematically violated in existing KB-VQA benchmarks. Our audit reveals substantial instances with missing or contradicted answers and underspecified questions that render accuracy a misleading metric. Furthermore, we find that existing datasets rely on visually trivial, single-entity scenes that bypass the need for sophisticated visual-to-knowledge mapping. We demonstrate that even with controlled architectures, these flaws lead to distorted model rankings and overestimations of reasoning capabilities. To address this, we introduce (1) a principled audit-and-repair protocol that restores answer derivability and question clarity, and (2) a controlled multi-entity augmentation protocol that introduces visual ambiguity to challenge initial retrieval and grounded reasoning. Re-evaluation under corrected and augmented settings yields markedly different performance trends. Our findings call for rethinking evaluation protocols and designing more interaction-aware KB-VQA benchmarks that prioritize verifiable reasoning over simple matching.

From Accuracy to Visual Dependence: Auditing and Filtering Modality Collapse in Traffic VideoQA

High benchmark accuracy does not guarantee genuine use of visual evidence. We study this problem in traffic accident Video Question Answering (VideoQA), where correct answers should depend on scene-specific visual evidence but may instead be inferred from textual shortcuts. Through an audit of four public benchmarks, we find that several recent open-weight Vision-Language Models (VLMs) perform competitively, and sometimes better, without video input. On the MM-AU benchmark, removing video consistently improves accuracy, and adding more frames further degrades performance. To quantify visual dependence, we introduce two dataset-level diagnostics: Blind Gap, measuring above-chance text-only performance, and Visual Gain, measuring the marginal benefit of adding video. We further propose an instance-level Shortcut Score that combines text-only confidence with visual necessity signals, enabling continuous, training-free filtering of shortcut-prone questions. The resulting subsets reduce shortcut bias and improve visual grounding. Our findings reveal large differences in grounding quality across benchmarks and show that visually grounded evaluation, not just high accuracy, is essential in safety-critical VideoQA.