William Rudman

William Rudman, Abhishek Divekar, Kanishk Jain et al. · amazon-science

Fitting quantitative models to data is a central step in scientific workflows, yet it remains one of the least automated. Recent agent-based systems leverage language and vision-language models (VLMs) to iteratively propose and refine statistical models, but these systems struggle on more challenging modeling tasks. To address these limitations, we introduce VESTA: Visual Exploration with Statistical Tool Agents, a framework that equips VLMs with a dynamically growing exploration toolkit to guide model refinement through data transformations, hypothesis-driven visualizations, and robust statistical tests. Unlike prior systems that rely on iterative critique alone, VESTA actively explores data before and during refinement by selecting or creating diagnostic tools, which accumulate in the model's context and can be reused later. We evaluate VESTA against established baselines in three toolkit configurations: no tools, static expert-written tools, and dynamic model-written tools. To support this evaluation, we introduce DAWN (Dataset for Automated Workflows and Numerical Modeling), a benchmark targeting distribution fitting and time series modeling with varying difficulty tiers, and culminating in real-world astronomy tasks including modeling initial mass functions and gravitational-wave chirp signals. We find that VESTA's dynamic tool creation outperforms prior agentic pipelines, with the largest gains on complex and domain-specific tasks. We further show that dynamically generated tools are substantially more sophisticated than those produced by existing visual tool-creation systems, covering more diagnostic categories per function and strongly preferring visual outputs that the VLM critic can reason over directly.

Yating Wu, William Rudman, Venkata S Govindarajan et al.

Asking inquisitive questions while reading, and looking for their answers, is an important part in human discourse comprehension, curiosity, and creative ideation, and prior work has investigated this in text-only scenarios. However, in scientific or research papers, many of the critical takeaways are conveyed through both figures and the text that analyzes them. While scientific visualizations have been used to evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) capabilities, current benchmarks are limited to questions that focus simply on extracting information from them. Such questions only require lower-level reasoning, do not take into account the context in which a figure appears, and do not reflect the communicative goals the authors wish to achieve. We generate inquisitive questions that reach the depth of questions humans generate when engaging with scientific papers, conditioned on both the figure and the paper's context, and require reasoning across both modalities. To do so, we extend the linguistic theory of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) from being text-only to multimodal, where implicit questions are raised and resolved as discourse progresses. We present MQUD, a dataset of research papers in which such questions are made explicit and annotated by the original authors. We show that fine-tuning a VLM on MQUD shifts the model from generating generic low-level visual questions to content-specific grounding that requires a high-level of multimodal reasoning, yielding higher-quality, more visually grounded multimodal QUD generation.

Niclas Lietzow, Danielle Bitterman, Carsten Eickhoff et al.

Vision-language models must reconcile visual evidence with memorized world knowledge when the two conflict. How they resolve this conflict shapes the reliability of multimodal systems, yet prior work characterizes it behaviorally without a component-level causal account. We combine activation patching across three granularities (residual stream, attention heads, and MLP sublayers) with model-component ablation studies and mechanistic analysis. Across three VLM families, we find that visual grounding emerges by default, whereas prior grounding depends on a small set of causally necessary attention heads (2.5-4.8%) concentrated in the second half of the network. These heads enable answers from stored world knowledge (e.g., "red" for a strawberry) despite conflicting visual input. Ablating them flips predictions from knowledge-grounded to visually grounded answers in 68-96% of cases under prior-knowledge prompts, but changes only 0.8-7.5% of visually grounded predictions, establishing an asymmetric causal structure. The identified heads decompose into routing heads, which modulate information flow, and writing heads, which directly project answer tokens into the residual stream. This structure is consistent across model families and scales, revealing a sparse causal circuit underlying perception-knowledge conflict in VLMs.

Oliver McLaughlin, Daniel Shubin, Carsten Eickhoff et al.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly adapted through domain-specific fine-tuning, yet it remains unclear whether this improves reasoning beyond superficial visual cues, particularly in high-stakes domains like medicine. We evaluate four paired open-source VLMs (LLaVA vs. LLaVA-Med; Gemma vs. MedGemma) across four medical imaging tasks of increasing difficulty: brain tumor, pneumonia, skin cancer, and histopathology classification. We find that performance degrades toward near-random levels as task difficulty increases, indicating limited clinical reasoning. Medical fine-tuning provides no consistent advantage, and models are highly sensitive to prompt formulation, with minor changes causing large swings in accuracy and refusal rates. To test whether closed-form VQA suppresses latent knowledge, we introduce a description-based pipeline where models generate image descriptions that a text-only model (GPT-5.1) uses for diagnosis. This recovers a limited additional signal but remains bounded by task difficulty. Analysis of vision encoder embeddings further shows that failures stem from both weak visual representations and downstream reasoning. Overall, medical VLM performance is fragile, prompt-dependent, and not reliably improved by domain-specific fine-tuning.

Kaijie Mo, Thomas Yang, Chantal Shaib et al.

The morphological form of a word can often give cues to its meaning, but purely relying on these mappings can lead to overgeneralization in high-stakes domains. In the medical domain, for instance, LLMs can confidently reason about fictitious drugs from their affixes alone (e.g., wugcillin) and generate plausible-looking clinical content. We present a behavioral and mechanistic study of LLM "affix heuristics" in pharmacology. Using fictitious drug names built from real affixes, we show that affix signals alone elicit class-level pharmacological responses. We introduce a framework for identifying whether a model's drug semantics are driven mainly by the affix, the stem, or the drug name as a whole. Applied across 653 drugs, our framework reveals that models often induce drug meaning primarily through affix cues, yet rarely explicitly indicate this reliance, and sometimes incorrectly conflate properties among affix-sharing drugs. Activation patching across models further localizes this behavior to early-mid layers. These findings show that morphological shortcuts pose a subtle but measurable risk to safety.