跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2606.28273 · v2

Vision-Default, Prior-Override: Causal Mechanisms of Perception-Knowledge Conflict in Vision-Language Models

首次提交 2026-06-27 01:16
版本更新 2026-11-06 01:21
雷达观测 2026-11-06 12:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Vision-language models must reconcile visual evidence with memorized world knowledge when the two conflict. How they resolve this conflict shapes the reliability of multimodal systems, yet prior work characterizes it behaviorally without a component-level causal account. We combine activation patching across three granularities (residual stream, attention heads, and MLP sublayers) with model-component ablation studies and mechanistic analysis. Across three VLM families, we find that visual grounding emerges by default, whereas prior grounding depends on a small set of causally necessary attention heads (2.5-4.8%) concentrated in the second half of the network. These heads enable answers from stored world knowledge (e.g., "red" for a strawberry) despite conflicting visual input. Ablating them flips predictions from knowledge-grounded to visually grounded answers in 68-96% of cases under prior-knowledge prompts, but changes only 0.8-7.5% of visually grounded predictions, establishing an asymmetric causal structure. The identified heads decompose into routing heads, which modulate information flow, and writing heads, which directly project answer tokens into the residual stream. This structure is consistent across model families and scales, revealing a sparse causal circuit underlying perception-knowledge conflict in VLMs.

作者备注:Findings of EMNLP 2026. 17 pages, 11 figures, 13 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

该研究用激活修补与组件消融揭示:视觉语言模型默认依赖视觉证据,而先验知识覆盖视觉输入依赖少量因果必要的注意力头。

正在读取账号与研究记录…

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。

v2 · 2026-11-06 01:21 · 最新观测版本

Vision-Default, Prior-Override: Causal Mechanisms of Perception-Knowledge Conflict in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models must reconcile visual evidence with memorized world knowledge when the two conflict. How they resolve this conflict shapes the reliability of multimodal systems, yet prior work characterizes it behaviorally without a component-level causal account. We combine activation patching across three granularities (residual stream, attention heads, and MLP sublayers) with model-component ablation studies and mechanistic analysis. Across three VLM families, we find that visual grounding emerges by default, whereas prior grounding depends on a small set of causally necessary attention heads (2.5-4.8%) concentrated in the second half of the network. These heads enable answers from stored world knowledge (e.g., "red" for a strawberry) despite conflicting visual input. Ablating them flips predictions from knowledge-grounded to visually grounded answers in 68-96% of cases under prior-knowledge prompts, but changes only 0.8-7.5% of visually grounded predictions, establishing an asymmetric causal structure. The identified heads decompose into routing heads, which modulate information flow, and writing heads, which directly project answer tokens into the residual stream. This structure is consistent across model families and scales, revealing a sparse causal circuit underlying perception-knowledge conflict in VLMs.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗