Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with fine-grained Visual Search, the task of locating small or rare objects in high-resolution images. Existing remedies fall into two families: (1) Training-free methods based on attention or confidence scores are accurate but slow, since they require multiple MLLM queries per example. (2) Reinforcement Learning (RL) trained tool-use models are faster at inference but opaque, since their tool calls remain uncontrollable and hard to interpret. To overcome this, we propose \emph{VisLens} (Visual Focus via Logit Lens), a Visual Search method built on the logit lens, which decodes the semantics held in a hidden state by projecting it through the LLM head. VisLens further uses a lightweight tuned-lens that maps early hidden states into the final hidden state space, so visual tokens can be read out from early layers. These tokens are matched to target words in the query to generate a crop of the relevant region, which is fed back in alongside the original image to produce the final answer. The whole process, from decoding to the final answer, completes in a single forward pass without repeated queries. VisLens matches or exceeds prior baselines while delivering a substantial latency advantage, running $8.5$--$9.9\times$ faster than Thyme and up to $22.2\times$ faster than training-free multi-pass search methods.
Static importance scores compress visual evidence into a single ranking, but the value of remaining evidence can change after one cue has been observed. We study this possibility in controlled compositional visual search, where color, shape, and texture evidence can be independently exposed and their conditional marginal utility measured across acquisition states. In a held-out confirmation on 800 scenes, frozen OpenCLIP and SigLIP exhibit robust state-dependent rank reversals that concentrate in candidate-overlap regimes designed to induce ordering changes. The structure persists across two evidence-accumulation constructions and ten equivalent query wordings, but disappears under query-scene derangement. We also ask whether these reversals matter for decisions. In a post-confirmation exploratory matched-first-action analysis, reranking only after the first acquisition yields positive step-2 utility when decisions are selected under one evidence mode, wording, or backbone and evaluated under another. Together, these results show that evidence importance is state-dependent in this controlled setup and that updating an evidence ordering can retain decision-relevant value across evaluator changes. They motivate evaluating vision-language evidence use conditionally rather than through a single static ranking, while providing a measurable target for future adaptive evidence-selection methods.
Human visual search is serial: the fovea must land on a candidate to confirm it, and those landings form a scanpath. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs), given the same foveated input, search as humans do bears on their use as models of human vision and on attention-alignment scores. We compare three general-purpose MLLMs with human eye-movement scanpaths on goal-directed search (COCO-Search18), driving each model fixation by fixation through an identical, human-matched foveated view and assessing it along three axes: the decision of target presence, the efficiency of reaching the target, and the gaze process itself. The axes dissociate. On the decision and on target acquisition the models match or exceed humans, detecting present targets near ceiling and reaching them on the first saccade more often than people do. The gaze process is not human. Under the human-matched condition, all three share one signature: low-entropy, large-amplitude, self-consistent scanpaths that agree with themselves far more closely than two humans agree with each other. That is consistent with a single-pass, non-serial architecture rather than a limit of acuity. Matched retinal input reproduces where humans look but not how the looking unfolds in time, and no degradation regime recovers human-like search at human-like success. The gap sits on a process axis that answer-alignment and saliency metrics do not measure. Because they miss it, such metrics cannot certify human-like vision, and zero-shot models suit outcome and spatial questions but not temporal, process-level ones.
Visual search has been one of the most productive paradigms in the study of visual attention: the way reaction time scales with the number of items distinguishes parallel, "pop-out" search from serial, attention-demanding search. I ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit the same behavioral signatures. I adapt four classic paradigms: feature versus conjunction search, spatial-configuration (T-vs-L) search, enumeration, and the tilted/vertical search asymmetry; and present them to current frontier and mid-tier models. Because a single model call has no reaction time, I use the number of reasoning ("thinking") tokens a model spends per trial as a within-model analog of search effort, and I compare against a large public human benchmark (Wolfe et al., 2010). The models reproduce several human signatures: feature search costs flat effort while conjunction effort climbs with set size; frontier models hold accuracy where mid-tier models collapse to chance; and a resolution control shows the conjunction cost is genuine search rather than difficulty resolving small shapes. They also diverge from humans in informative ways. The target-present effort slope exceeds the target-absent slope, reversing the human ordering; enumeration remains accurate where humans would lose count; and a reasoning model with adaptive deliberation declines to deliberate on detection tasks altogether, so that a single search expresses itself as an effort gradient in one model and as an accuracy cliff in another. I argue that psychophysical paradigms, applied behaviorally, are a sharp and inexpensive probe of machine visual cognition, and that the points of divergence are as informative as the points of agreement.