/ Paper arXiv 2610.40913
In short
In shortReport a mistake
Key numbers
From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.
Abstract
From the paperThe authors' own words.
Vision-language agents equipped with tools expose intermediate outputs for inspection and comparison with the model's reasoning, which may offer safety benefits over single-shot models. This paper tests that potential benefit when the sensor reading itself is untrusted, so that the tool and reasoning channels share a common visual fault. We consider a dermatology agent based on segmentation, contrastive retrieval, and an iterative vision-language reasoner and define a coupling taxonomy that distinguishes single-channel errors from joint errors that agree or disagree. On PAD-UFES-20, we show that typographic injection produces detectable directional retrieval capture, whereas physical corruption does not. Crop-first retrieval preserves the payload at a readable scale and produces 55% joint wrong agreement across all cases (71% of faulty cases); full-image retrieval produces 35% (43%). Under a binary decision, if both channels are wrong, their predictions must agree, so hard-label channel comparison cannot detect joint failures, limiting disagreement recall to 0.29 (crop-first) versus 0.57 (full-image). The direction of the order effect is reproduced on the independent HIBA test set.
From the full paper
From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.
Reading the paper on arXiv…
Ask this paper
/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section
/ Your notes
Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.
