HackerPapers

arXiv:2603.21687cs.AI

MIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understanding

Mohammad Asadi, Jack W. O'Sullivan, Fang Cao, Tahoura Nedaee, Kamyar Rajabalifardi, Fei-Fei Li, Ehsan Adeli, Euan Ashley

Abstract

Multimodal AI systems have achieved remarkable performance across a broad range of real-world tasks, yet the mechanisms underlying visual-language reasoning remain surprisingly poorly understood. We report three findings that challenge prevailing assumptions about how these systems process and integrate visual information. First, Frontier models readily generate detailed image descriptions and elaborate reasoning traces, including pathology-biased clinical findings, for images never provided; we term this phenomenon mirage reasoning. Second, without any image input, models also attain strikingly high scores across general and medical multimodal benchmarks, bringing into question their utility and design. In the most extreme case, our model achieved the top rank on a standard chest X-ray question-answering benchmark without access to any images. Third, when models were explicitly instructed to guess answers without image access, rather than being implicitly prompted to assume images were present, performance declined markedly. Explicit guessing appears to engage a more conservative response regime, in contrast to the mirage regime in which models behave as though images have been provided. These findings expose fundamental vulnerabilities in how visual-language models reason and are evaluated, pointing to an urgent need for private benchmarks that eliminate textual cues enabling non-visual inference, particularly in medical contexts where miscalibrated AI carries the greatest consequence. We introduce B-Clean as a principled solution for fair, vision-grounded evaluation of multimodal AI systems.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 3 comments across 3 threads, from Mar 2026 to Jun 2026. Found in 2 HN submissions from Mar 2026 to Mar 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments3 threads

    • You can see it in just this PDF report. It's multiple things. It never shows the subscapularis in the way that people actually look the tendon. It hyper fixates on the axial when I find the sagittal much more useful for subscapularis. Figure 7. There's an arrow pointing "to the…

      riahiView on HNParent context

    • I'd be very very hesitant to trust studies like this. It's very easy to mess up these benchmarks. See for example this recent paper where AI managed to beat radiologists on interpreting x-rays... when the AI didn't even have access to the x-rays: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687…

      gpmView on HNParent context

    • From the Conclusion section of the PDF[1], "Multimodal AI systems are increasingly deployed on the assumption that their benchmark performance reflects genuine visual understanding. Our results fundamentally challenge these assumptions. Across every model-benchmark pair tested…

      fernlyView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.