Papers › Unveiling the Ignorance of MLLMs: Seeing Clearly, Answering Incorrectly

Unveiling the Ignorance of MLLMs: Seeing Clearly, Answering Incorrectly

15 Jun 2024CVPR 2025 1arXiv:2406.10638archive 2025-07-28

Yexin Liu, Zhengyang Liang, Yueze Wang, Xianfeng Wu, Feilong Tang, Muyang He, Jian Li, Zheng Liu, Harry Yang, SerNam Lim, Bo Zhao

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have displayed remarkable performance in multi-modal tasks, particularly in visual comprehension. However, we reveal that MLLMs often generate incorrect answers even when they understand the visual content. To this end, we manually construct a benchmark with 12 categories and design evaluation metrics that assess the degree of error in MLLM responses even when the visual content is seemingly understood. Based on this benchmark, we test 15 leading MLLMs and analyze the distribution of attention maps and logits of some MLLMs. Our investigation identifies two primary issues: 1) most instruction tuning datasets predominantly feature questions that 'directly' relate to the visual content, leading to a bias in MLLMs' responses to other indirect questions, and 2) MLLMs' attention to visual tokens is notably lower than to system and question tokens. We further observe that attention scores between questions and visual tokens as well as the model's confidence in the answers are lower in response to misleading questions than to straightforward ones. To address the first challenge, we introduce a paired positive and negative data construction pipeline to diversify the dataset. For the second challenge, we propose to enhance the model's focus on visual content during decoding by refining the text and visual prompt. For the text prompt, we propose a content guided refinement strategy that performs preliminary visual content analysis to generate structured information before answering the question. Additionally, we employ a visual attention refinement strategy that highlights question-relevant visual tokens to increase the model's attention to visual content that aligns with the question. Extensive experiments demonstrate that these challenges can be significantly mitigated with our proposed dataset and techniques.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

9 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from baai-dcai/multimodal-robustness-benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections