What Looks Like a Capability Limit in Vision-Language Models Is a Readout Limit

Abstract

Benchmarks for vision-language models offer their answer choices in some convention: a letter, a color name, a pixel coordinate. That convention is treated as neutral. We find it is not, and that the limits a benchmark reports can belong to the readout rather than to the model. On 200 COCO photographs, Qwen3-VL-4B picks the correct one of nine locations for a named object 68.5% of the time when the locations are given in English and 20.0% when the same locations are given as pixel coordinates. Chance is 11.1%. The cost arises when the answer options are coordinates; giving the model a coordinate in the question instead costs 3.5 points and is not significant. The gap holds on a 4x4 grid, under 8-bit rather than 4-bit quantization, and in every slice by object size, boundary distance and category. It also decides which model wins. Two models that tie under English names differ by 39 points in one coordinate system and by 54 in the other, in opposite directions. On the color task, three of the four open models capable of the task show the penalty; on photographs, two of three open models do, and so does Gemini, at 11.1 points on parseable answers (p = 1e-4). GPT-4o does not. To ask whether a model reads a coordinate at all, we attach the wrong name to each one and record which the model follows. Color options written as hue angles are followed below chance; a normalized pixel convention is followed at four times chance. This tells apart conventions a model can use from ones it cannot, though it did not predict accuracy on two untried conventions. Five models also name the same color wheel five different ways, so a fixed answer vocabulary is not neutral across models either. Five times during this work we measured a capable model as incapable because our scorer and the model disagreed about what an answer looks like. We report each case. They are the phenomenon in miniature.