Perception, Not Reasoning, Limits Visual Theory of Mind

1Texas A&M University   2University of Bonn   3Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
4Hamad Bin Khalifa University
Accepted to NeurIPS (E&D) 2026 and Oral at the BabyVLM Workshop 🎉

Abstract

Vision-language models pass text-based false-belief probes at near-human levels but drop by twenty or more percentage points the moment the same problem is conveyed visually. The consensus diagnosis is conceptual, prescribing new belief-reasoning modules. We argue the bottleneck is perceptual: not what the model cannot reason about, but what it cannot see. We propose a five-condition dissociation protocol that holds the reasoning task constant while varying perceptual fidelity from visual only to text only, and quantify the result with the Perceptual Contribution Ratio, a dose-response metric measuring how much of the visual-to-text gap a scaffold of given fidelity closes. Instantiated on abstract 2D panels in the Heider-Simmel tradition and naturalistic 3D game scenes from MuMA-ToM and MindPower across seven VLMs and roughly 147,000 API calls, ground-truth scaffolds close the gap on every regime, matching or exceeding the text-only ceiling on abstract panels and MuMA-ToM. Automatic parsers, including frontier VLMs as zero-shot scene describers, fail. The dominant visual-only error mode is reality bias (60% of false-belief failures): models report where an object currently is rather than where an absent agent believes it to be, the signature of a front-end that fails to encode who was present when. The route to better visual social reasoning runs through perception, not new reasoning modules.

The perceptual bottleneck hypothesis and results across abstract and naturalistic theory-of-mind benchmarks.

Results

Full scaffolds exceed text-only scores on abstract false-belief tasks and MuMA-ToM. On MindPower, they improve scores but remain below text-only input. Automatic descriptions produce smaller gains or lower scores.

View all reported values
Seven-model means (%)
SettingABaBpBfC
MuMA-ToM44.747.4Not defined58.154.0
MindPower19.118.324.127.333.0
Abstract false belief73.975.788.898.494.5
Seven-model means, plotted from the rounded values reported in Tables 3–5 and Section 4. A: visual-only; Ba: automatic; Bp: perceptual; Bf: full scaffold; C: text-only. MuMA-ToM has no Bp condition. MindPower uses a scenario-weighted layer-mean score; scores should be compared within each setting. Results in the paper.

MindPower’s Bf includes the reference reasoning chain. Bp uses perceptual information and raises the mean score from 19.1 to 24.1.

Naturalistic Benchmarks

MuMA-ToM contains household videos. MindPower contains embodied scenarios in ThreeDWorld and VirtualHome.

MuMA-ToM household scenes in the top row and MindPower embodied scenarios in the bottom row.
Representative naturalistic inputs: MuMA-ToM above, MindPower below. Evaluations use eight frames per MuMA-ToM video and twelve-frame storyboards per MindPower scenario. Figure 3 in the paper.

Cite

@inproceedings{barhdadi2026perception,
  title     = {Perception, Not Reasoning, Limits Visual Theory of Mind},
  author    = {Barhdadi, Mohamed Rayan and Wasim, Syed Talal and Gall, Juergen
               and Serpedin, Erchin and Kurban, Hasan},
  booktitle = {Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems},
  year      = {2026}
}