← 研踪 PaperTrailCVF · CVPR 2026:cvf:b14a5c6e7ea2e7c849db056496f875aa · 记录 #1
Do VLMs Perceive or Recall? Probing Visual Perception vs. Memory with Classic Visual Illusions
Sun, XiaoxiaoLi, MingyangYuan, KunSun, Min WooEndo, MarkWu, ShengguangLi, ChanglinZhang, YuhuiWang, ZeyuYeung-Levy, Serena 来源日期(仅到年份) 2026
来源记录日期 2026
雷达观测 2026-11-02 00:35
摘要
Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often answer classic visual illusions "correctly" on original images, yet persist with the same responses when illusion factors are inverted, even though the visual change is obvious to humans. This raises a fundamental question: do VLMs perceive visual changes or merely recall memorized patterns? While several studies have noted this phenomenon, the underlying causes remain unclear. To move from observations to systematic understanding, this paper introduces VI-Probe, a controllable visual-illusion framework with graded perturbations and matched visual controls (without illusion inducer) that disentangles visually grounded perception from language-driven recall. Unlike prior work that focuses on averaged accuracy, we measure stability and sensitivity using Polarity-Flip Consistency, Template Fixation Index, and an illusion multiplier normalized against matched controls. Experiments across different families reveal that response persistence arises from heterogeneous causes rather than a single mechanism. For instance, GPT-5 exhibits memory override, Claude-Opus-4.1 shows perception-memory competition, while Qwen variants suggest visual-processing limits. Our findings challenge single-cause views and motivate probing-based evaluation that measures both knowledge and sensitivity to controlled visual change. Data and code are available at https://sites.google.com/view/vi-probe/.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026 · 最新观测版本
Do VLMs Perceive or Recall? Probing Visual Perception vs. Memory with Classic Visual Illusions
Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often answer classic visual illusions "correctly" on original images, yet persist with the same responses when illusion factors are inverted, even though the visual change is obvious to humans. This raises a fundamental question: do VLMs perceive visual changes or merely recall memorized patterns? While several studies have noted this phenomenon, the underlying causes remain unclear. To move from observations to systematic understanding, this paper introduces VI-Probe, a controllable visual-illusion framework with graded perturbations and matched visual controls (without illusion inducer) that disentangles visually grounded perception from language-driven recall. Unlike prior work that focuses on averaged accuracy, we measure stability and sensitivity using Polarity-Flip Consistency, Template Fixation Index, and an illusion multiplier normalized against matched controls. Experiments across different families reveal that response persistence arises from heterogeneous causes rather than a single mechanism. For instance, GPT-5 exhibits memory override, Claude-Opus-4.1 shows perception-memory competition, while Qwen variants suggest visual-processing limits. Our findings challenge single-cause views and motivate probing-based evaluation that measures both knowledge and sensitivity to controlled visual change. Data and code are available at https://sites.google.com/view/vi-probe/.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗