Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models

Zeyan Li, Siyuan Qiu, Jianfeng Xu
9/24/2026
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 4 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Chain-of-thought (CoT) instructions can distort multiple-choice VLM evaluation when a scorer appends a reasoning cue but reads answer-label logits before the model generates any rationale. We call this CoT-prefix scoring. On ScienceQA, Qwen2.5-VL-7B drops from 80.76% to 45.48%, and across five option-content permutations 93.54% of CoT-prefix predictions select the first slot. Condition-matched linear probes recover 78.94% from the same hidden states, while free generation restores 75.24%, showing that the answer often survives the prefix and the immediate readout fails. Vocabulary and layer diagnostics explain the mismatch: probability mass moves toward continuation tokens, while answer information remains linearly accessible in late layers. The effect recurs with varying severity across datasets and models, though not universally. These results show that CoT-prefix scoring can confound model knowledge with an evaluation-interface mismatch and should be avoided unless the requested and scored output events are aligned.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 4 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{li2026reasoning,
  title  = {Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models},
  author = {Zeyan Li and Siyuan Qiu and Jianfeng Xu},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2609.29278},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29278v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2609.29278.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2609.29278)

Discussion