New Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models
Updated 20 min ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294FQFK00MFZKWWZTYGTYXX
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 21 min ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11022
- T1 · 21 min ago
- Category
- cs.CV
- T1 · 21 min ago
Abstract
A model first sees an image from one physical measurement experiment, such as how far a block coasted, and must answer a question about a new trial, such as whether the block will pass a target after a fixed push. The initial experiment may provide enough information to answer, or the model may need another measurement, such as the object's mass, friction, restitution, or spring stiffness. We study whether vision language models can decide when to answer immediately and, when more evidence is needed, which experiment to perform. Current physical reasoning benchmarks usually evaluate only the final answer, so they do not directly measure this decision-making ability. We introduce a controlled evaluation where each problem provides one measurement image and four possible physical worlds created by combining two possible masses and two possible values of another relevant property. The model must either stop and answer or select the cheapest additional experiment that can resolve the question. We construct matched problem pairs where changing either the observed measurement or the question changes the optimal action. Since all possible worlds and experiment costs are known, we can explicitly determine the optimal choice. Across six open models and 144 physical parameter sets, direct responses repeat the same action for 95.1% to 100% of image pairs even when the correct action changes. Brief reasoning improves action switching, but the best model makes both decisions correctly for only 5.9% of image pairs. Additional analysis reveals failures in measurement interpretation, physical reasoning, and response formatting. By evaluating evidence selection separately from final answers, our benchmark reveals limitations in physical reasoning that conventional answer accuracy can overlook.
Authors 7
Sourajit Saha, Shubhashis Roy Dipta, Nobin Sarwar, Shaswati Saha, Yuxuan Jiang, Siyuan Li, Qiheng Wang
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 20 min agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11022
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
- Categories
- cs.CV, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.CV
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 21 min agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
20 min ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history
Official pageofficial_url1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11022 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A model first sees an image from one physical measurement experiment, such as how far a block coasted, and must answer a question about a new trial, such as whether the block will pass a target after a fixed push. The initial experiment may provide enough information to answer, or the model may need another measurement, such as the object's mass, friction, restitution, or spring stiffness. We study whether vision language models can decide when to answer immediately and, when more evidence is needed, which experiment to perform. Current physical reasoning benchmarks usually evaluate only the final answer, so they do not directly measure this decision-making ability. We introduce a controlled evaluation where each problem provides one measurement image and four possible physical worlds created by combining two possible masses and two possible values of another relevant property. The model must either stop and answer or select the cheapest additional experiment that can resolve the question. We construct matched problem pairs where changing either the observed measurement or the question changes the optimal action. Since all possible worlds and experiment costs are known, we can explicitly determine the optimal choice. Across six open models and 144 physical parameter sets, direct responses repeat the same action for 95.1% to 100% of image pairs even when the correct action changes. Brief reasoning improves action switching, but the best model makes both decisions correctly for only 5.9% of image pairs. Additional analysis reveals failures in measurement interpretation, physical reasoning, and response formatting. By evaluating evidence selection separately from final answers, our benchmark reveals limitations in physical reasoning that conventional answer accuracy can overlook. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type2
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| new | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
| cross | → | superseded | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
arXiv idarxiv_id1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2609.11022 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Categoriescategories1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs.CV, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.LG | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
PDFpdf_url1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.11022 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Primary categoryprimary_category1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cs.CV | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Publishedpublished_at1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 Sept 2026 | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- Property changedPaperNew Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models
New Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models: arxiv announce type changed from cross to new
Arxiv announce typecross→newarxiv - New paperPaperNew Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models
New paper: New Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CV | feed | T1· Official | 20 min ago | 1 |
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG | feed | T1· Official | 21 min ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.