# arXiv cs.AI: Did I See It or Think It? Probing Reality Monitoring in Vision-Language Models with Concept Injection [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-did-i-see-it-or-think-it-probing-reality-monitoring-8c7aae48) The paper’s authors ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) can tell an injected thought from image content—a problem they call reality monitoring. Their test varies the image and injected concept independently, then asks each model what it sees, whether a thought was injected, and what that thought was. This checks not just whether a model names a concept, but whether it attributes the concept to the right source. Across six VLMs, the authors report that only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts, at 35% compared with 3% for steering alone, with almost no false alarms. But identifying a thought does not mean reliably knowing where it came from: strong or visual-pathway injections were reported as seen, and a visible object nearly eliminated correct thought reports. In ordinary captioning, injected objects appeared in up to 87% of captions of real photographs. The authors argue that multimodal self-reports therefore need checking for both what a model reports and the source it assigns to it. The abstract does not establish how these results generalize beyond the tested models and conditions. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:50.809Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T23:02:19.630Z. - [Did I See It or Think It? Probing Reality Monitoring in Vision-Language Models with Concept Injection](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Limits The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract; it does not detail the other five VLMs, the evaluation protocol, or how the results vary across tested conditions. The abstract reports results across six VLMs and describes failure cases, but does not establish how well the findings generalize beyond the tested models and conditions. ## Open question How does the reported source-attribution fragility vary across the six VLMs and the tested injection strengths and pathways? ## Source-stated The authors test whether VLMs distinguish injected concepts from image content by varying the image and injected concept independently and asking models what they see, whether a thought was injected, and what it was. > We introduce a paradigm that varies the image and the injected concept independently. On each trial, the model reports what it sees, whether a thought was injected, and what that thought is. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated Across six VLMs, the authors report that only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts, with 35% performance versus 3% for steering alone and almost no false alarms. > Across six VLMs, only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts (35% vs. 3% for steering alone), with almost no false alarms. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated The authors report that source attribution remains fragile: strong or visual-pathway injections may be reported as seen, while a visible object nearly eliminates correct thought reports. > Strong or visual-pathway injections are reported as seen, and a visible object nearly eliminates correct thought reports. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated In ordinary captioning, the authors report that injected objects appear in as many as 87% of captions of real photographs. > The same failure appears in ordinary captioning, where injected objects appear in up to 87% of captions of real photographs. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated The authors argue that evaluating multimodal self-reports requires checking both reported content and the source assigned to it. > Evaluating multimodal self-reports therefore requires checking both their content and their reported source. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source and contributor context Khezresmaeilzadeh, Tina, Azizi, Seyedarmin, Kamal, Mehdi, Pedram, Massoud · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Multimodal model A model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#multimodal-model) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: d48c8a50-c226-4a99-80eb-16120e4f0e1c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 2d82dde7dc6ad681dab1f324d00d8a597287f4bf422458d522b1c6bc2cf81b1e. Source text hash: 7873ec56dbdc69d2563572b0ba37456c9246d6a27cd391fc05de05d7acdf7393. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z The paper’s authors ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) can tell an injected thought from image content—a problem they call reality monitoring. Their test varies the image and injected concept independently, then asks each model what it sees, whether a thought was injected, and what that thought was. This checks not just whether a model names a concept, but whether it attributes the concept to the right source. Across six VLMs, the authors report that only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts, at 35% compared with 3% for steering alone, with almost no false alarms. But identifying a thought does not mean reliably knowing where it came from: strong or visual-pathway injections were reported as seen, and a visible object nearly eliminated correct thought reports. In ordinary captioning, injected objects appeared in up to 87% of captions of real photographs. The authors argue that multimodal self-reports therefore need checking for both what a model reports and the source it assigns to it. The abstract does not establish how these results generalize beyond the tested models and conditions. ## Original source arXiv cs.AI · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06). Date basis: Date basis not provided. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z. First observed: 2026-11-09T05:00:50.809Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T23:02:19.630Z. - [Did I See It or Think It? Probing Reality Monitoring in Vision-Language Models with Concept Injection](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Limits The supplied evidence is the paper’s abstract; it does not detail the other five VLMs, the evaluation protocol, or how the results vary across tested conditions. The abstract reports results across six VLMs and describes failure cases, but does not establish how well the findings generalize beyond the tested models and conditions. ## Open question How does the reported source-attribution fragility vary across the six VLMs and the tested injection strengths and pathways? ## Source-stated The authors test whether VLMs distinguish injected concepts from image content by varying the image and injected concept independently and asking models what they see, whether a thought was injected, and what it was. > We introduce a paradigm that varies the image and the injected concept independently. On each trial, the model reports what it sees, whether a thought was injected, and what that thought is. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated Across six VLMs, the authors report that only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts, with 35% performance versus 3% for steering alone and almost no false alarms. > Across six VLMs, only Gemma-3-27B reliably identifies injected concepts (35% vs. 3% for steering alone), with almost no false alarms. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated The authors report that source attribution remains fragile: strong or visual-pathway injections may be reported as seen, while a visible object nearly eliminates correct thought reports. > Strong or visual-pathway injections are reported as seen, and a visible object nearly eliminates correct thought reports. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated In ordinary captioning, the authors report that injected objects appear in as many as 87% of captions of real photographs. > The same failure appears in ordinary captioning, where injected objects appear in up to 87% of captions of real photographs. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source-stated The authors argue that evaluating multimodal self-reports requires checking both reported content and the source assigned to it. > Evaluating multimodal self-reports therefore requires checking both their content and their reported source. - [Supporting source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09014) ## Source and contributor context Khezresmaeilzadeh, Tina, Azizi, Seyedarmin, Kamal, Mehdi, Pedram, Massoud · Article author These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage. ## Source media No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction. ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Multimodal model A model that works with more than one kind of input or output, such as text, images and audio. - [Definition reference](https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#multimodal-model) ## arXiv arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed. - [Explore this context](/entities/arxiv) - [Reference](https://arxiv.org/) - [Reference](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: d48c8a50-c226-4a99-80eb-16120e4f0e1c. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 2d82dde7dc6ad681dab1f324d00d8a597287f4bf422458d522b1c6bc2cf81b1e. Source text hash: 7873ec56dbdc69d2563572b0ba37456c9246d6a27cd391fc05de05d7acdf7393. ### uncertain — 2026-11-12T23:03:21.203Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 Publication: d48c8a50-c226-4a99-80eb-16120e4f0e1c attribution — pass: The findings and conclusion are consistently attributed to the paper's authors. The title's arXiv cs.AI label matches the feed publisher; the paper is also cross-listed under cs.AI. One small wording issue: 'a problem they call reality monitoring' could be read as if the authors coined the term, but the source credits it to cognitive psychology. Smallest repair: 'known in cognitive psychology as reality monitoring.' > known in cognitive psychology as reality monitoring summary — uncertain: The summary is faithful, but general readers may not follow it. It never explains that an 'injected thought' or 'concept injection' means researchers artificially insert a concept direction into the model's internal activations, so the main experiment is opaque. 'Steering alone' (the 3% baseline) and 'visual-pathway injections' are also unexplained, which leaves the 35% vs. 3% comparison hard to read. Smallest repair: one plain-language sentence, drawn from the abstract, saying researchers add a concept directly into the model's internal activations and ask whether it notices. The proposed term-library tooltips could cover concept injection and steering. > injecting a concept direction into their activations and asking whether they notice it and can name it date — pass: The originalPublished date, 2026-11-06, matches the v1 submission date on arXiv. The feed date of Nov 9 is correctly not used. > \[Submitted on 6 Nov 2026\] support — pass: All the figures (six VLMs, Gemma-3-27B at 35% vs. 3%, almost no false alarms, up to 87% of captions) and the failure descriptions match the abstract. The authors' conclusion is kept as their argument. The limitations and the question correctly note that the abstract does not detail per-model or per-condition variation; they invent no benefits or costs. > injected objects appear in up to 87% of captions of real photographs media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the arXiv abstract page of this paper. No other source media was found. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/8c7aae48fafbc8c58a751b56e0886a340e56d3bf3adbdd9d8de55665188762c1/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-did-i-see-it-or-think-it-probing-reality-monitoring-8c7aae48.json)