When strong multimodal models are widely available, progress requires new scientific methodologies beyond benchmark scores—using models as instruments for understanding behavior. We address this by asking: can we use large vision-language models (LVLMs) as experimental instruments for studying their own failure dynamics? Focusing on visual hallucination, we introduce SAFE, a training-free decoding framework that contrasts visually-grounded and vision-ablated generation paths to produce a token-level contrastive grounding score that identifies when the model favors linguistic priors over visual evidence. This signal serves dual roles: as a practical proxy for detecting visually-ungrounded tokens, and as the basis for decoding-time penalties. Our analysis yields three empirical observations: visual dependency decays over generation, hallucinations co-occur in temporal clusters, and early intervention reduces clustering without substantially degrading fluency. On MMHalBench, SAFE substantially outperforms all compared baselines; results elsewhere are more mixed. We argue that designing contrastive probes exemplifies a broader mission: using models as instruments for scientific understanding. Code: https://github.com/zhaozhipeng1997/SAFE_public.

Behavioral benchmarking reveals what biases exist in vision-language models but not which internal components are most sensitive to targeted intervention, precluding principled intervention. We argue for mechanism-level evaluation as a necessary complement, demonstrating causal mediation analysis as a diagnostic instrument for gender bias. We decompose gender-cue effects into controlled indirect effects attributable to specific-layer activations and direct effects through all other pathways, producing layer-by-layer mechanistic signatures. Across six models spanning three architectural families (LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-NeXT, InstructBLIP at 7B/13B) and two 8B-scale architectures, three findings emerge: language-layer activations exhibit the greatest output sensitivity under controlled intervention, with the direct component often carrying the opposite sign; architectural choices redistribute layer-wise sensitivity to activation replacement; and counterfactual scores diverge from surface-level scores, exposing implicit associations. Systematic ablation validates internal consistency. An intervention experiment finds that the average indirect effect (AIE) and downstream intervention effectiveness are only weakly correlated (Pearson r = 0.33), and the layer with the second-largest AIE produces near-zero bias change—indicating that mechanistic diagnosis captures activation-replacement sensitivity but does not, by itself, identify optimal intervention targets. These results show mechanism-level evaluation captures architecture-specific sensitivity patterns that behavioral benchmarks cannot; pairing both should become standard NLP practice. Code: https://github.com/zhaozhipeng1997/CARD-GenderBias.