跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2603.18373 · v5

To See or To Please: Uncovering Visual Sycophancy and Split Beliefs in VLMs

首次提交 2026-03-19 08:15
版本更新 2026-11-03 12:09
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

When Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answer correctly, do they rely on the image? We introduce a Tri-Layer Diagnostic Framework that asks three questions of every (image, question) pair when the image is blanked: does the model register that the image is missing (Latent Anomaly Detection, LAD), does its output distribution depend on the image (Visual Necessity Score, VNS), and does it nonetheless commit to a content answer? The cascade assigns each pair of any existing benchmark to one of four modes: Perceptual Blindness, Language Shortcut, Visual Sycophancy (the blank image registers and matters, yet the model commits to a fabricated answer), or Robust Refusal. Across nine open-weight VLMs and 9,000 model-sample pairs, 28.1% are Visual Sycophancy, 18.6% Language Shortcut, 5.6% Perceptual Blindness, and 47.8% Robust Refusal. The modes are strongly model-specific: the Qwen3-VL models refuse on blank input in 93-98% of pairs, whereas Pixtral-12B commits to an answer in 72%. Within-generation scaling increases Visual Sycophancy in both Qwen2.5-VL (7B->72B: 25.5->40.1%) and Llama-3.2-Vision (11B->90B: 34.3->48.0%), while the newer Qwen3-VL generation nearly eliminates it. A blinded human study confirms that LAD and VNS track what annotators observe, and that 80% of Visual-Sycophancy responses carry no textual sign that the image was blank.

作者备注:v5: corrects the alignment test of earlier versions (v1-v4), which counted explicit refusals as Visual Sycophancy; Visual Sycophancy is 28.1% (not 75.9%) and Robust Refusal 47.8% (not 0%); see Sec. 6. 21 pages

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v5 · 2026-11-03 12:09 · 最新观测版本

To See or To Please: Uncovering Visual Sycophancy and Split Beliefs in VLMs

When Vision-Language Models (VLMs) answer correctly, do they rely on the image? We introduce a Tri-Layer Diagnostic Framework that asks three questions of every (image, question) pair when the image is blanked: does the model register that the image is missing (Latent Anomaly Detection, LAD), does its output distribution depend on the image (Visual Necessity Score, VNS), and does it nonetheless commit to a content answer? The cascade assigns each pair of any existing benchmark to one of four modes: Perceptual Blindness, Language Shortcut, Visual Sycophancy (the blank image registers and matters, yet the model commits to a fabricated answer), or Robust Refusal. Across nine open-weight VLMs and 9,000 model-sample pairs, 28.1% are Visual Sycophancy, 18.6% Language Shortcut, 5.6% Perceptual Blindness, and 47.8% Robust Refusal. The modes are strongly model-specific: the Qwen3-VL models refuse on blank input in 93-98% of pairs, whereas Pixtral-12B commits to an answer in 72%. Within-generation scaling increases Visual Sycophancy in both Qwen2.5-VL (7B->72B: 25.5->40.1%) and Llama-3.2-Vision (11B->90B: 34.3->48.0%), while the newer Qwen3-VL generation nearly eliminates it. A blinded human study confirms that LAD and VNS track what annotators observe, and that 80% of Visual-Sycophancy responses carry no textual sign that the image was blank.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗