arXiv (All)
open access
Geometric Parrots: Rule Absence vs. Rule Fragility in Spatial and Physical Reasoning for Vision-Language Models
Vision-language models (VLMs) can answer many geometric and physical reasoning questions correctly, yet still behave inconsistently in interaction, for example, abandoning a correct answer when confronted with a confident but incorrect user assertion. Standard single-turn accuracy cannot distinguish
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- When to Rethink: Learning Multi-Perspective Self-Verification for Vision-Language Models#1216100
- Soft Spatial Reasoning#1143318
- Looks the Same, Answers Differently: Flip-Direction Steering for Robust Vision-Language Reasoning#1076507
- Seeing Isn't Knowing: Do VLMs Know When Not to Answer Spatial Questions (and Why)?#1216318
- Toward Guarantees for Clinical Reasoning in Vision Language Models via Formal Verification#1343513
Record · ID 1327760
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive