Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces GridVQA-X, a diagnostic framework designed to evaluate the explainability of multimodal explainable AI (MxAI) methods by distinguishing between true cross-modal reasoning and superficial shortcuts. By employing a closed-world synthesis logic, the framework generates mathematically guaranteed explanations and trains two paired models鈥攐ne that learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and another that relies on shortcuts. The study finds that existing MxAI methods often fail to accurately differentiate between these reasoning pathways, underscoring a significant limitation in current evaluation protocols for multimodal models.
Existing explainability methods misrepresent multimodal decision-making, often conflating genuine reasoning with shallow shortcuts.
With the increasing development of Vision-Language Models, it becomes imperative that their predictions are readily explainable to relevant stakeholders. However, the field of explainability has not kept pace with the multimodal surge. While recent Multimodal Explainable AI (MxAI) methods generate explanations to attribute the interaction between different modalities, current evaluation protocols lack the ground truth required to distinguish between true cross-modal reasoning (e.g., spatial composition) and shallow cross-modal shortcuts (e.g., Bag-of-Words attribute matching). It remains unknown whether MxAI methods faithfully capture synergistic interactions or merely hallucinate reasoning on models acting as simple feature detectors. In this paper, we introduce GridVQA-X, the first diagnostic framework specifically designed to evaluate cross-modal explainability. Unlike natural datasets, GridVQA-X leverages a closed-world synthesis logic to generate unique, mathematically guaranteed explanations. We utilize this controlled environment to train paired ground-truth models on identical architectures: $M_{\text{pure}}$, which learns robust spatial-relational reasoning and $M_{\text{spur}}$, which is structurally forced to rely on cross-modal shortcuts. This behavioral divergence creates a rigorous testbed: a faithful explainer must report distinct reasoning pathways for each model. Our findings reveal that widely used methods fail to distinguish between models relying on genuine spatial-relational reasoning and those exploiting cross-modal shortcuts, highlighting a critical gap in capturing true cross-modal synergy and misrepresenting how multimodal models actually make decisions.
