Perception, Not Reasoning, Limits Visual Theory of Mind

arXiv:2611.10694v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language models pass text-based false-belief probes at near-human levels but drop by over twenty percentage points on abstract panels the moment the same problem is conveyed visually. The consensus diagnosis is conceptual, prescribing new belief-reasoning modules. We argue the dominant 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, the share of the visual-to-text gap a given fidelity closes. We test this on two kinds of scenes: abstract 2D panels in the Heider--Simmel tradition, and naturalistic 3D game scenes from MuMA-ToM and MindPower. The evaluation covers seven VLMs and roughly 159,000 API calls. Ground-truth scaffolds substantially close the gap in every setting, and on the abstract panels and MuMA-ToM they match or exceed the text-only reasoning. Whereas scaffolds built by automatic parsers, including frontier VLMs, fail. The most common error in the visual-only condition is \emph{reality bias}, which accounts for 60\% of false-belief failures. Models report where an object actually is, not where an absent agent believes it is. This points to a perceptual front-end that fails to track which agents were present at each moment. Under the evaluated protocol, structured visual scene-state extraction, rather than belief inference, is the dominant bottleneck for visual ToM.