Compositional Failure in Audio-Visual LLMs: Late-Layer Prior Dominance Under Cross-modal Conflict

We study audio-visual conflict as a compositional generalization test for AV-LLMs: the model must combine synchronized but semantically incompatible audio and video evidence and decide whether the pair matches. On VideoLLaMA 2-7B-AV, three alignment configurations remain nearchance on the scored exact-string Yes/No subset of AVHBench, even though their output priors shift substantially. Similarly, off-the-shelf InternVideo2 experienced a 32.3% accuracy decrease specifically under cross-modal conflict, accompanied by a 17.3% instruction-following failure. We call this failure mode prior dominance: late-layer commitment to an internally preferred answer pattern that is weakly grounded in the conflicting inputs. To explain this behavior, we conduct a mechanistic interpretability analysis and find that commitment remains concentrated at 25.5 $\pm$ 1 layers. We show that stronger temporal alignment changes answer bias, but do not improve compositional conflict resolution. Code and data to reproduce our mechanistic audit and behavioral evaluations are available at https://github.com/AdarshSudheer09/AVHBench-dmai.

SIGNPOST-Bench: Benchmarking Text-Vision Conflict Resolution in Multimodal Large Language Models

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) make grounded predictions in real-world scenes by combining visual and textual cues, yet existing benchmarks rarely reveal how they arbitrate between these evidence sources when they conflict. We introduce SIGNPOST-Bench, a controlled counterfactual benchmark for evaluating text-vision conflict resolution. Each source image is transformed into a counterfactual quintuplet of Original, Blank, Similar, Random, and Adversarial variants. Synthetic, localized scene-text interventions are designed to preserve non-textual content, enabling paired measurements of changes in localization performance and directed shifts toward geographic targets introduced by conflicting text. SIGNPOST-Bench contains 5,111 counterfactual groups and 25,555 image variants from four datasets. We evaluate 20 MLLMs from seven providers. Compared with Original images, Adversarial variants raise median localization error from 282 km to 1,347 km, a 4.8-fold increase. Among geocodable adversarial samples, 6.5-20.1% of predictions lie less than 50 km from the injected target across models, and every evaluated model exhibits a positive mean paired reduction in target distance from Blank to Adversarial. Compatible, unrelated, and conflicting text replacements produce distinct effects on model predictions, while clean-input localization performance does not fully predict robustness to conflicting text. These results establish visual geolocation as a continuous diagnostic of scene-text arbitration and provide a controlled framework for evaluating how MLLMs resolve conflicting multimodal evidence.

To Fuse or to Drop? Dual-Path Learning for Resolving Modality Conflicts in Multimodal Emotion Recognition

Multimodal emotion recognition (MER) benefits from combining text, audio, and vision, yet standard fusion often fails when modalities conflict. Crucially, conflicts differ in resolvability: benign conflicts stem from missing, weak, or ambiguous cues and can be mitigated by cross-modal calibration, while severe conflicts arise from intrinsically contradictory (e.g., sarcasm) or misleading signals, for which forced fusion may amplify errors. Recognizing this, we propose Dual-Path Conflict Resolution (DCR), a unified framework that learns when to fuse and when to drop modalities. Path I (Affective Fusion Distiller, AFD) performs reverse distillation from audio/visual teachers to a textual student using temporally weighted class evidence, thereby enhancing representation-level calibration and improving fusion when alignment is beneficial. Path II (Affective Discernment Agent, ADA) formulates MER as a contextual bandit that selects among fusion and unimodal predictions based on a dual-view state and a calibration-aware reward, enabling decision-level arbitration under irreconcilable conflicts without requiring per-modality reliability labels. By taking into account the full multimodal context and coupling soft calibration with hard arbitration, DCR reconciles conflicts that can be aligned while bypassing misleading modalities when fusion is harmful. Across five benchmarks covering both dialogue-level and clip-level MER, DCR consistently outperforms competitive baselines or achieves highly competitive results. Further ablations, conflict-specific subset evaluation, and modality-selection analysis verify that AFD and ADA are complementary and jointly improve robust conflict-aware emotion recognition.