Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models

Summary

A new study reveals that state-of-the-art vision-language models often produce consistent yet incorrect predictions across viewpoints in spatial reasoning tasks, indicating a reliance on prior knowledge rather than visual evidence. The authors introduce ViewDiag, a multi-view evaluation protocol, to diagnose this issue.

SourcearXiv Computer VisionAuthor: S Divakar Bhat, Toshihiko Yamasaki
Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2606.02742] Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models

[Submitted on 1 Jun 2026]

Title:Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models, by S Divakar Bhat and Toshihiko Yamasaki

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Spatial reasoning is fundamental to robotics, autonomy, and embodied AI, yet modern vision-language models (VLMs) remain unreliable on metric distance queries. A common assumption is that consistent predictions across viewpoints reflect geometric grounding. We test this assumption and find the opposite: leading VLMs often produce view-invariant and consistent answers even when those answers are incorrect, indicating weak coupling between predictions and viewpoint-specific visual evidence.

We introduce \textbf{ViewDiag}, a controlled multi-view evaluation protocol built from Hypersim, ScanNet, and KITTI360, comprising 176 object-pair tracks across 80 scenes with 2--10 views per track. The protocol evaluates models along three axes: metric accuracy, distributional concentration, and a latent feature probe for internal collapse that distinguishes decision collapse from representation collapse. Across diverse models, we observe a consistent pattern of high prediction stability paired with substantial error, clustering in a regime characterized by strong consistency but low accuracy.

\noindent These results challenge the common use of cross-view consistency as a proxy for geometric understanding. Instead, we show that stable predictions may reflect prior-driven collapse rather than evidence-sensitive reasoning. ViewDiag provides a controlled benchmark and diagnostic framework for evaluating spatial VLMs beyond accuracy alone. The code and data can be found \href{this https URL}{here}

Subjects:

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.02742 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2606.02742v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.02742

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: S Divakar Bhat [view email] [v1] Mon, 1 Jun 2026 18:06:08 UTC (5,364 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models, by S Divakar Bhat and Toshihiko Yamasaki

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CV

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

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.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Cross-view consistency in VLMs does not guarantee geometric understanding; it may reflect prior-driven collapse.
  • The ViewDiag protocol evaluates models on metric accuracy, distributional concentration, and latent feature probes.
  • Experiments show high stability paired with low accuracy, challenging the use of consistency as a proxy for spatial reasoning.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.

Consistent Yet Wrong: Evidence Insensitivity in Spatial Vision-Language Models | AI News Hub