A failure of Imagination: VLMs fail to use visual representations for text, but self-distillation can help

Abstract

Vision-language (VL) models are typically built by fine-tuning a language model to attend to visual features in service of a Visual Question-Answering objective. We ask whether this alignment changes how language models represent text---especially on tasks where visualization would help, like geometry questions posed in words. We distinguish weak multimodality (the model can answer questions about an input image) from strong multimodality (the model's text representations themselves become vision-aligned, improving performance on text-only tasks with latent visual structure). To test for strong multimodality, we construct a task of shape-counting problems with paired equivalent text and image specifications. This task is trivial when the image is provided, but requires visualization when specified in text as line coordinates. We compare instruction-tuned Qwen-2.5 and Mistral models against their vision-aligned counterparts on the text variant of the task. We find that the multimodal models do no better in this setting, despite strong performance on the image version of the task. Probing experiments corroborate this: vision-aligned decoder embeddings carry no more visual structure than their text-only counterparts. Finally, we provide an optimization objective that distills in-context visual embeddings into text embeddings. This alignment induces gains on the text variant of the task without explicit task supervision, even on samples more complex than seen during alignment. This suggests that VQA-style alignment leaves available cross-modal transfer untapped.