What Looks Like a Capability Limit in Vision-Language Models Is a Readout Limit
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Title:What Looks Like a Capability Limit in Vision-Language Models Is a Readout Limit
Abstract:Benchmarks for vision-language models offer their answer choices in some convention: a letter, a color name, a pixel coordinate. That convention is treated as neutral. We find it is not, and that the limits a benchmark reports can belong to the readout rather than to the model.
On 200 COCO photographs, Qwen3-VL-4B picks the correct one of nine locations for a named object 68.5% of the time when the locations are given in English and 20.0% when the same locations are given as pixel coordinates. Chance is 11.1%. The cost arises when the answer options are coordinates; giving the model a coordinate in the question instead costs 3.5 points and is not significant. The gap holds on a 4x4 grid, under 8-bit rather than 4-bit quantization, and in every slice by object size, boundary distance and category. It also decides which model wins. Two models that tie under English names differ by 39 points in one coordinate system and by 54 in the other, in opposite directions.
On the color task, three of the four open models capable of the task show the penalty; on photographs, two of three open models do, and so does Gemini, at 11.1 points on parseable answers (p = 1e-4). GPT-4o does not. To ask whether a model reads a coordinate at all, we attach the wrong name to each one and record which the model follows. Color options written as hue angles are followed below chance; a normalized pixel convention is followed at four times chance. This tells apart conventions a model can use from ones it cannot, though it did not predict accuracy on two untried conventions. Five models also name the same color wheel five different ways, so a fixed answer vocabulary is not neutral across models either.
Five times during this work we measured a capable model as incapable because our scorer and the model disagreed about what an answer looks like. We report each case. They are the phenomenon in miniature.
| Comments: | 14 pages, 1 figure, 8 tables |
| Subjects: | Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.27408 [cs.CV] |
| (or arXiv:2609.27408v1 [cs.CV] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27408
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Alfredo Frontera Del Valle [view email][v1] Wed, 23 Sep 2026 06:21:46 UTC (60 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
A Mechanistic Study of AI-Text Detection Neurons in Frozen BERT: Sparse Probing and Activation Patching on RAID
Sep 28
-
Manifold Projection and Iterative Autoencoder Refinement for Masked Language Modeling
Sep 28
-
Not All Memories Are Equal: Hierarchical Collaborative Memory for Validity-Aware Retrieval in LLM Agents
Sep 28
-
Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline
Sep 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.