Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer visual questions using learned language and category priors rather than grounding their predictions in the image itself. Counterfactual images provide a natural diagnostic setting for this failure mode: when visible evidence contradicts what is usually true, a grounded model should answer from the pixels, while a prior-following model will produce a canonical but visually incorrect response. However, existing counterfactual benchmarks mainly ask whether such prior-following behavior exists. In this paper, we ask a further question motivated by the rise of tool-augmented and agentic vision systems: can additional visual evidence views help VLMs reason against their priors? We introduce PriVE-Bench, a Prior-vs-Visual Evidence Benchmark that uses paired original and counterfactual images to distinguish visually grounded answers from prior-consistent errors. We further introduce PriVE-Tools, a controlled agentic-vision-inspired extension that evaluates whether tool-derived visual evidence—including bounding boxes, crops, zoom panels, and contours—improves grounding under the same counterfactual conflicts. Across open- and closed-source VLMs, we compare raw, paired-image, and tool-conditioned inputs using accuracy, prior-following error rate, and other-response rate. Our results show that visual evidence tools can help in some settings, especially when models can use localized evidence effectively, but they are not a universal remedy: several models continue to follow language and category priors even when relevant visual evidence is explicitly provided. The benchmark and codebase can be accessed at https://github.com/JingyuSunUOE/counterfactual-vlm-benchmark

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are powerful yet computationally intensive for widespread practical deployments. To address such challenge without costly re-training, post-training acceleration techniques like quantization and token reduction are extensively explored. However, current acceleration evaluations primarily target minimal overall performance degradation, overlooking a crucial question: does the accelerated model still give the same answers to the same questions as it did before acceleration? This is vital for stability-centered industrial applications where consistently correct answers for specific, known situations are paramount, such as in AI-based disease diagnosis. We systematically investigate this for accelerated VLMs, testing four leading models (LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-Next, Qwen2-VL, Qwen2.5-VL) with eight acceleration methods on ten multi-modal benchmarks. Our findings are stark: despite minimal aggregate performance drops, accelerated models changed original answers up to 20% of the time. Critically, up to 6.5% of these changes converted correct answers to incorrect. Input perturbations magnified these inconsistencies, and the trend is confirmed by case studies with the medical VLM LLaVA-Med. This research reveals a significant oversight in VLM acceleration, stressing an urgent need for instance-level stability checks to ensure trustworthy real-world deployment.