Vision-language models are increasingly used in settings where some input modalities may be unavailable, yet we know little about whether they can faithfully explain how such missing information affects their own predictions. We introduce an interventional protocol for evaluating self-explanations of modality dynamics: models state what each modality alone would support, whether restoring a missing modality would change their answer, and whether the available evidence is sufficient; we then execute the corresponding modality intervention and compare these claims with the model's realized behavior. We evaluate eight open-weight VLMs from two model families across four tasks spanning complementary and isomorphic text-image settings and a multi-view driving setting. We find a systematic tendency to overstate the sufficiency of available modality evidence. Models substantially underestimate the effect of restoring missing modalities: task-level median predicted change rates are at most 8.8%, while the corresponding executed change rates reach 72.1%, with underprediction in 62 of 64 model-task-condition settings. Insufficiency claims are rare, but precise when produced: restoring the modality changes the answer in a median of 78-100% of flagged cases. Retrospective self-explanations show the same tendency: on complementary data, models over-credit single-modality sufficiency; on isomorphic data, they over-credit single representation sufficiency relative to their executed behavior. Together, these results show that VLMs systematically mischaracterize how their predictions depend on available and missing modality evidence, motivating executable interventions as a behavioral ground truth for evaluating multimodal self-explanations.

翻译：暂无翻译