Abstract
Decision trees can make vision-language model (VLM) classification interpretable by replacing a single prediction with a sequence of root-to-leaf questions. However, the accuracy cost of this greedy, non-backtracking procedure remains unclear. We introduce \textbf{MYOPIA}, a benchmark comprising four LLM-generated, human-refined decision trees for GTSRB, MNIST, CIFAR-10, and MSCOCO, together with matched prompts, diagnostic protocols, and an evaluation harness. Across GPT-4o, Qwen-VL Max, and LLaMA-3.2 11B Vision, tree traversal underperforms zero-shot prompting in all 12 dataset--model pairs; paired bootstrap analyses consistently favor zero-shot. Our diagnostics characterize interacting failure modes associated with this gap. Models often recall tree-encoded class attributes more accurately than they ground the same attributes in images: the mean label--image accuracy gaps are 9.5, 13.8, and 12.6 points for GPT-4o, Qwen-VL Max, and LLaMA, respectively. Incorrect local decisions then irreversibly exclude the correct class, while answer extraction introduces additional model-dependent loss. A node-level audit of the four trees finds that split entropy is weakly but consistently associated with lower node accuracy, whereas depth, branching factor, and within-node grounding differences are less stable. \textbf{MYOPIA} therefore provides a framework for diagnosing hierarchical visual classification and motivates testing tree designs that prioritize perceptual answerability and recovery from early errors. Code is available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21573
