External text can override conflicting image evidence in multimodal large language models, a failure we call multimodal contextual sycophancy. We introduce a 998-case diagnostic that independently varies visual evidence, commonsense priors, and external text, and probe when this failure arises by moving the information boundary around a context-blind visual witness. On abnormal images paired with Gemini-generated false text, GPT-5.1 scores 7.9% under joint conditioning, 49.7% when the context-blind witness report is scored directly, 63.7% under a matched two-call witness-arbiter pipeline that exposes the witness to the text, and 84.2% under System-2 Visual Arbitration (S2VA), which withholds the text from the witness. Across six models, S2VA improves over the direct witness report by 19.7 to 44.1 points, with all paired 95% confidence intervals excluding zero. The best information boundary is not uniform: textual context scaffolds some models, and a GPT-4o-regenerated subset changes the relative ordering of joint conditioning, Witness-Only, and S2VA. Contextual sycophancy is therefore sensitive to when text is introduced, as well as to the model and context source.
Omni-Large Language Models (Omni-LLMs) power complex multi-modal reasoning in applications like World Action Models and autonomous agents. However, their strong performance often masks a profound Perceptual-Decision Misalignment (PDM), where decisions remain unfaithful to multi-modal perceptions. To diagnose this, we formalize Causal Modality Sensitivity (CMS), operationalized via a dual-lens framework: Answer Retention Rate (ARR) at the macro behavioral level, and Logit Angular Discrepancy (LAD) to track microscopic distribution shifts. We also curate CausalMSBench, a diagnostic dataset isolating language priors. Benchmarking reveals that popular Omni-LLMs exhibit critically low CMS, showing negligible distribution shifts even when key modalities are removed. To rectify this, we propose Modality Subspace Activation (MSA), a training-free inference-time framework that uses Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to estimate modal activation strengths. MSA dynamically balances modal projections in the last hidden state, effectively restoring CMS across benchmarks.
Knowledge-Intensive Visual Question Answering (KI-VQA) benchmarks evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as multimodal knowledge assistants by requiring external information beyond a provided image to answer questions. KI-VQA involves multiple sub-problems -referring expression understanding, visual grounding, object recognition, knowledge retrieval, and reasoning-yet existing benchmarks typically report only end-task accuracy, obscuring where failures arise. To analyze the full KI-VQA pipeline, we introduce CRAG-MM-Diagnostics, a diagnostic benchmark with stage-wise data annotations that isolate 1) language-based visual grounding, 2) object identification, and 3) knowledge retrieval and reasoning. We evaluate fully parametric and retrieval-augmented VLMs, providing fine-grained analyses using newly collected metadata, such as target ROIs, entity names, and visual complexity scores. Our results point to knowledge retrieval and reasoning as the primary bottleneck, but also highlight issues in the other parts of the KI-VQA pipeline, such as the fact that VLMs struggle with target object identification or that image retrievers struggle to integrate textual cues. These findings expose fundamental limitations in current KI-VQA systems and motivate stage-aware evaluation. We, lastly, leverage these findings to propose a grounded bimodal RAG pipeline that integrates a visual grounding module to crop targets before image retrieval, boosting GPT-5 and Qwen's respective accuracies by 13.3 and 8.5 percentage points.
A key challenge in multimodal reasoning is determining which visual dependencies become relevant under a specific task, rather than merely recognizing visible content. We study this through edit-induced constraint discovery in text-in-image editing, a controlled diagnostic setting where a local text change can activate secondary consistency constraints: given a valid editing instruction and an image, can a model identify the secondary regions that must also change? Across 461 diagnostic cases, four MLLMs, and 19 constraint subtypes, models recover only 46% case-level macro recall under unguided prompting versus 94% when constraints are explicitly provided, suggesting that a substantial portion of the failure arises when models must decide which unstated dependencies to surface. Oracle-field decomposition shows that case-specific causal explanations are the most effective partial guidance (0.782 recall), above region names (0.610) or type labels (0.646), suggesting that edit-specific causal cues account for much of the oracle gain. A downstream experiment further shows that higher self-discovery recall does not necessarily improve task performance: unverified self-discovery introduces false positives that offset recall gains, motivating precision-aware constraint elicitation.
With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures: $M_{\text{pure}}$, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and $M_{\text{spur}}$, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.