Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the phenomenon of "late-layer textual override" in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), where models initially make correct vision-based predictions that are later overridden by text-based outputs. The research reveals that 85% of incorrect predictions shift towards text, while 89% of correct predictions shift towards vision, indicating a clear directional signature that can be exploited. By introducing CALRD (Conflict-Aware Layer Reference Decoding), a training-free method, the authors demonstrate up to 9.4% absolute improvements on conflict benchmarks while maintaining overall performance, effectively recovering suppressed visual information.
MLLMs often start with the right visual predictions but override them for text, and we can reverse this bias with a simple intervention that boosts accuracy by nearly 10%.
When vision contradicts text, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) consistently favor text, even when images provide clear evidence otherwise. This bias poses risks for applications requiring visual grounding, yet its cause remains unclear. In this paper, we uncover a surprising finding: models often get it right initially, forming correct vision-based predictions in their intermediate layers, before changing their minds and favoring text in the final output. We call this "late-layer textual override". The visual information is encoded, it simply does not survive to the output. More intriguingly, we find that how predictions change reveals whether they're correct: 85% of failures shift toward text, while 89% of successes shift toward vision. This directional signature enables a simple but powerful intervention: when we detect a confident visual prediction being suppressed, we restore it. We propose CALRD (Conflict-Aware Layer Reference Decoding), a training-free method that recovers overridden predictions at inference time. Experiments across five MLLMs of varying architectures demonstrate up to 9.4% absolute improvements on conflict benchmarks while largely preserving standard performance, without training or external knowledge. It recovers what the model already knew but failed to preserve.
