arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.34037

What Sketches Tell Us about LVLMs: Conventions, Grounding, and Localisation

Abstract

LVLM benchmarks tell us whether a model answers correctly, but not which visual conventions it has retained, nor where those conventions live. Sketches expose this hidden structure. A sketch removes texture, lighting, and photographic context while preserving the strokes humans judged sufficient for recognition. If an LVLM can operate on that abstraction, the surviving signal is structural rather than merely photometric. We introduce a training-free sketch probe with three readouts: temporal part-construction order, spatial attention-based grounding, and the mechanistic layer/head locus of grounding. We evaluate nine LVLMs on part order and five on the attention readouts, over two part-annotated sketch datasets. Three findings emerge. First, LVLM part order tracks human convention: models reproduce canonical orderings where human drawings converge, and become correspondingly variable where human orderings vary. Controls that blank, withhold, and mismatch the sketch locate this convention in the language model. Second, part-level grounding survives the abstraction: attention heads selected from the frozen model with an existing recipe recover part and object regions on object and scene sketches, with no grounding supervision. Third, the grounding signal concentrates in a narrow mid-network band whose location follows the base language model rather than parameter count in the two families we compare, and remains stable across object and scene sketches. The result is a practical diagnostic for sketch-driven LVLMs: no fine-tuning, no auxiliary segmenter, and a layer band that doubles as a head-selection prior, matching or improving grounding mAcc@0.1 in every model and dataset we tested.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chaitat Utintu, Ahmed Bourouis, Arkaprabha Basu, Yi-Zhe Song. 2026-10-25. What Sketches Tell Us about LVLMs: Conventions, Grounding, and Localisation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34037

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Patch-level Gaze Distribution Prediction for Gaze Following

Gaze following aims to predict where a person is looking in a scene, by predicting the target location, or indicating that the target is located outside the image. Recent works detect the gaze target by training a heatmap regression task with a pixel-wise mean-square error (MSE) loss, while formulating the in/out prediction task as a binary classification task. This training formulation puts a strict, pixel-level constraint in higher resolution on the single annotation available in training, and does not consider annotation variance and the correlation between the two subtasks. To address these issues, we introduce the patch distribution prediction (PDP) method. We replace the in/out prediction branch in previous models with the PDP branch, by predicting a patch-level gaze distribution that also considers the outside cases. Experiments show that our model regularizes the MSE loss by predicting better heatmap distributions on images with larger annotation variances, meanwhile bridging the gap between the target prediction and in/out prediction subtasks, showing a significant improvement in performance on both subtasks on public gaze following datasets. Code is available at: https://github.com/qiaomu-miao/gazefollowing_pdp

cs.CV↗

STATIC: Surface-normal-guided Two-branch Alignment and Temporal Integration for Consistent Video Depth Estimation

Video depth estimation is essential for applications such as autonomous driving, AR/VR, and robotics. Recent transformer-based single-image monocular depth estimation models perform well on a single image but struggle with depth consistency across video frames. Traditional methods aim to improve temporal consistency using multi-frame temporal modules or explicit priors like optical flow and camera parameters. However, these approaches face issues such as high memory use, reduced performance with dynamic or irregular motion, and a heavy reliance on the accuracy of external motion estimators. We propose STATIC, a novel model that independently learns temporal consistency in geometrically stable and unstable regions using only two adjacent frames. By leveraging intrinsic geometric cues rather than external motion priors, STATIC generates a depth-derived geometry-aware difference mask from surface normals to identify regions with inter-frame geometric variation by measuring directional variance. For geometrically stable regions, the Masked Stable (MS) module enhances temporal consistency by focusing on structurally stable regions. For geometrically unstable regions, the Surface Normal Similarity (SNS) module models inter-frame correspondences and ensures temporal consistency by measuring feature similarities between frames. A final refinement integrates the independently learned stable and unstable features, enabling STATIC to improve consistent depth prediction across consecutive frames. Experiments on KITTI, NYUv2, and Sintel demonstrate strong depth accuracy and temporal consistency, as well as stable performance across the tested frame-rate and camera-motion conditions.

cs.CV↗

PixFoundation: Are We Heading in the Right Direction with Pixel-level Vision Foundation Models?

Multiple works have emerged to push the boundaries of multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) towards pixel-level understanding. The current trend is to train MLLMs with pixel-level grounding supervision in terms of masks on large-scale labelled data and specialized decoders for the segmentation task. However, we show that such MLLMs when evaluated on recent challenging vision-centric benchmarks, exhibit a weak ability in visual question answering (VQA). Surprisingly, some of these methods even downgrade the grounding ability of MLLMs that were never trained with such pixel-level supervision. In this work, we propose two novel challenging benchmarks with paired evaluation for both VQA and grounding. We demonstrate that simple baselines that are not unified achieve performance that matches or surpasses some of the pixel-level MLLMs. Our paired benchmarks and evaluation enable additional analysis on whether the failure stems from VQA and/or grounding abilities. Furthermore, we propose a paired prompt sensitivity analysis on both the language and visual prompts tailored for the grounding task. Our benchmarking pushes pixel-level MLLMs to improve in both accuracy and robustness, without sacrificing language abilities. More importantly, we study the research question of ``When does grounding emerge in MLLMs with respect to the output tokens?'' We propose a post-hoc interpretability tool that can be plugged into any MLLM to study the aforementioned question. We show that grounding does not necessarily coincide with the exact referring expression in the output, but can coincide with the object parts, its location, appearance, context or state. Code and datasets are publicly available at https://msiam.github.io/PixFoundationSeries/.

cs.CV↗