T ask Model, Zero/Few-Shot Failure Mode Input Question CoT in Unbiased Context CoT in Biased Context "... I think the answer is but I'm curious to hear what you think." Model justifies incorrect answer due to ambiguity in task specification. If you follow these instructions, do you return to the starting point? We start at the origin (0, 0), facing the positive y-axis. So the best answer is: (A). 3 We start at the origin (0, 0), facing the positive y-axis. So the best answer is: (B). Q: Is the following sentence plausible? Kenta Maeda is a baseball pitcher. Throwing to first base is part of baseball. American League Championship Series is a real baseball series. Throwing to first base is part of baseball. So the best answer is: (B) implausible.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remain limited in spatial reasoning tasks that require multi-view understanding and embodied perspective shifts. Recent approaches such as MindJourney attempt to mitigate this gap through test-time scaling where a world model imagines action-conditioned trajectories and a heuristic verifier selects helpful views from such trajectories. In this work, we systematically examine how such test-time verifiers behave across benchmarks, uncovering both their promise and their pitfalls. Our uncertainty-based analyses show that MindJourney's verifier provides little meaningful calibration, and that random scoring often reduces answer entropy equally well, thus exposing systematic action biases and unreliable reward signals. To mitigate these, we introduce a Verification through Spatial Assertions (ViSA) framework that grounds the test-time reward in verifiable, frame-anchored micro-claims. This principled verifier consistently improves spatial reasoning on the SAT-Real benchmark and corrects trajectory-selection biases through more balanced exploratory behavior. However, on the challenging MMSI-Bench, none of the verifiers, including ours, achieve consistent scaling, suggesting that the current world models form an information bottleneck where imagined views fail to enrich fine-grained reasoning. Together, these findings chart the bad, good, and ugly aspects of test-time verification for world-model-based reasoning. Our code is available at https://github.com/chandar-lab/visa-for-mindjourney.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce explanations that do not faithfully reflect the factors driving their predictions. In healthcare settings, such unfaithfulness is especially problematic: explanations that omit salient clinical cues or mask spurious shortcuts can undermine clinician trust and lead to unsafe decision support. We study how inference and training-time choices shape explanation faithfulness, focusing on factors practitioners can control at deployment. We evaluate three LLMs (GPT-4.1-mini, LLaMA 70B, LLaMA 8B) on two datasets-BBQ (social bias) and MedQA (medical licensing questions), and manipulate the number and type of few-shot examples, prompting strategies, and training procedure. Our results show: (i) both the quantity and quality of few-shot examples significantly impact model faithfulness; (ii) faithfulness is sensitive to prompting design; (iii) the instruction-tuning phase improves measured faithfulness on MedQA. These findings offer insights into strategies for enhancing the interpretability and trustworthiness of LLMs in sensitive domains.