Skip to content
Back to the collection

MIRAGE: The Illusion of Visual Understanding

Mohammad Asadi, Jack W. O'Sullivan, Fang Cao

Show all 8 authors

Tahoura Nedaee, Kamyar Rajabalifardi, Fei-Fei Li, Ehsan Adeli, Euan Ashley

2026 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the 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.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

riahi
Neutral mention · rule
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 acromial undersurface". The arrow is not pointed to that location. Figure 5. "thin bursal fluid". This is within physiologic variation, but is calling bursitis. It keeps bringing up irrelevant normal things like the shape of the coracromipal arch, I assume because lots of websites have information about that as a patient focused possible cause for rotator cuff impingement. I am reminded of the recent Stanford MIRAGE study which found that LLMs will happily hallucinate answers about medical images if the medical images are omitted. https://arxiv.org/html/2603.21687v2
gpm
Neutral mention · rule
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 (on a pre existing "large scale visual question answering benchmark for generalist chest x-ray understanding" that wasn't intentionally messed up). And in interpreting x-ray's human radiologists actually do just look at the x-rays. In the context the article is discussing the human doctors don't just look at the notes to diagnose the ER patient. You're asking them to perform a task that isn't…
Read the full comment
necessary, that they aren't experienced in, or trained in, and then saying "the AI outperforms them". Even if the notes aren't accidentally giving away the answer through some weird side channel, that's not that surprising. Which isn't to say that I think the study is either definitely wrong, or intentionally deceptive. Just that I wouldn't draw strong conclusions from a single study here.
fernly
Neutral mention · rule
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, the accuracy that frontier models achieved without any access to images exceeded the additional accuracy they gained when images were provided. Moreover, a text-only 3-billion-parameter model, trained solely on question-answer pairs stripped of images, outperformed all frontier multimodal systems and human radiologists on a held-out chest radiology benchmark. Taken together, these results…
Read the full comment
demonstrate that high benchmark accuracy does not reliably indicate visual understanding." Basically, they are so good at extracting clues from the text of the questions, and extrapolating from them, that they proceed to answer _as if_ they had an image to view. With confidence, of course. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687

Keep following the thread.

More in Biology & medicine

More from the same topics.

2018arXiv

Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure

A. Pluchino. A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda

The largely dominant meritocratic paradigm of highly competitive Western cultures is rooted on the belief that success is due mainly, if not exclusively, to personal qualities such as talent, intelligence, skills, efforts or risk taking.

16 mentions14 months
2.5HN score