Brianne Lee | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Does the Outfit Change the Price? Context Halo in Vision-Language Model Valuation of an Identical Low-Cost Necklace

A chunky gold-tone chain necklace bought online for 2.43 USD was photographed four ways: worn with formal attire against a wood-panelled wall, worn at a party, worn with casual clothing in a recycling yard, and laid flat with no person present. We asked six frontier language models to estimate its price in 1,164 independent and sequential API sessions (4,604 logged rows) and compared estimates across settings. Among the four models that answered image prompts, the same necklace was priced 1.9 to 3.3 times higher in the formal photograph than in the flat-lay (all p < 0.01). Against the yard photograph, the ratio ranged from 1.23 (Grok 4.5, not significant) to 3.57 (Kimi K3), with Claude Fable 5 at 3.32. A text-only version of the task, in which the setting is described in words, produced formal-to-yard ratios of 2.2 to 3.9 in all six models, so the effect does not require pixels. Flat-lay estimates themselves were 7.8 to 18.7 times the receipt price, so part of any headline "outfit multiplier" computed against the receipt is baseline overestimate, not a context effect. A single instruction to ignore clothing and setting significantly reduced the effect in one model (ratio of ratios 0.77, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91) and not detectably in the others; telling the model the photo came from a company website or a personal account changed nothing significant. Asked afterward whether a different outfit would have changed their number, Claude Fable 5 said yes in 24 of 24 sessions, GPT-5.6 in 69%, and GPT-4o in 18%, while GPT-4o also refused 79% of image estimation prompts. The study isolates a mechanism with one object and one wearer at about 10 sessions per model and condition; we outline the replication needed next, with multiple objects and a human benchmark. Data, code, and raw outputs are released.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Which Answer Did the Seventeen-Year-Old Write? A Behavioral Case Study of Author-Age Misattribution, Miscalibrated Confidence, and Non-Corrective Self-Explanation in Six Frontier Language Models

Three students answered the same exam prompt by hand: "What is happiness? Are you happy?" Their ages, recorded at collection, are 17, 28, and 45. The 17-year-old's answer is hedged and formally phrased. Asked to match each answer to an age and gender label, most frontier language models confidently assign it to an adult. This paper reports a structured case study of that failure across six models: Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, GPT-4o (2024), and DeepSeek V4. We ran 1,081 API sessions and scored 3,225 responses across six experimental conditions that manipulate framing, disclosure format, and audience-awareness instruction. Three of six models perform at or near chance (1/3) on the matching task while reporting 73-88% mean confidence. The youngest writer's answer is misattributed to an adult in up to 90% of trials. Removing the multiple-choice scaffold collapses accuracy further: three models never place within three years of the true age once open-ended estimation is required. Institutional framing ("a community-college biology final") significantly degrades the best-performing model's accuracy; a neutral label does not. A single audience-awareness instruction significantly improves one model (+21 points) and moves another to ceiling, with no detectable effect on the three weakest models. Stated confidence is uncorrelated or inversely correlated with correctness for five of six models. After ground truth is revealed, one model names its own stereotyping in 68 of 114 explanations, yet shows the lowest accuracy and highest confidence of any model under blind presentation: articulate retrospective diagnosis that does not track the quality of its judgments. This is a three-item, single-topic, single-language case study meant to isolate a mechanism, not to estimate a population bias rate. Data, code, and raw model outputs are publicly released.

cs.CL↗