Diagnosing Corruption-Induced Reliability Failures in Vision-Language Models

Visual-language models (VLMs) frequently struggle with robustness issues in real-world situations due to low- or varying-quality input images. In this paper, we aim at analyzing VLMs' robustness by applying perturbations and distortions to the input images, such as blur or low contrast. Toward this goal, we propose BRUCE (Benchmarking Robustness Under Corruption Escalation, a multimodal reasoning fragility framework for scientific vision-language reasoning. State-of-the-art evaluation frameworks/studies primarily focus on clean-task accuracy and rarely analyze how reasoning stability degrades across robustness dimensions. Besides varying over a wide-range of input perturbations, BRUCE employs two novel metrics -- Robustness Corruption Index (RCI) and Traversal-RCI (T-RCI) -- to quantify how rapidly multimodal reasoning performance deteriorates in VLMs as visual corruption severity increases under progressive perturbation scaling. We evaluate BRUCE across chemistry and mathematical reasoning tasks for multiple datasets, while analyzing corruption-induced prediction failures in terms of four high-level reasoning domains: OCR-dependent reasoning, spatial reasoning, symbolic reasoning, and semantic failures, with each containing fine-grained corruption specific failure subtypes, thereby enabling an interpretable failure analysis.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are fragile under image corruption. We find that the wording of the question affects VLMs in two opposite ways. Verbose questions make VLMs substantially more robust---e.g., rephrasing "Is there a cat?" into "Please look carefully and answer: is there a cat?". Conversely, VLMs become more fragile under corruption when the question is semantically complex or finer-grained, e.g., "what colour is the cup left of the chair?" instead of "is there a cup?". Both effects stem from question-conditioned cross-modal attention, which induces a spectral filter over image patches: verbose questions broaden its frequency support, while fine-grained questions concentrate it onto fewer visual scales. The model's answer drifts most when this filter and the corruption sit on the same spatial frequencies. We test the filter view on Qwen3-VL and LLaVA-OneVision across GQA and CLEVR; verbose paraphrasing reduces drift variance by 70--81% on the 8B models. The practical recipe---pad the prompt---further yields measurable gains in accuracy, even under image corruption.

The robustness of Vision Language Models (VLMs) is commonly assessed through output-level invariance, implicitly assuming that stable predictions reflect stable multimodal processing. In this work, we argue that this assumption is insufficient. We introduce a representation-aware and frequency-aware evaluation framework that measures internal embedding drift, spectral sensitivity, and structural smoothness (spatial consistency of vision tokens), alongside standard label-based metrics. Applying this framework to modern VLMs across the SEEDBench, MMMU, and POPE datasets reveals three distinct failure modes. First, models frequently preserve predicted answers while undergoing substantial internal representation drift; for perturbations such as text overlays, this drift approaches the magnitude of inter-image variability, indicating that representations move to regions typically occupied by unrelated inputs despite unchanged outputs. Second, robustness does not improve with scale; larger models achieve higher accuracy but exhibit equal or greater sensitivity, consistent with sharper yet more fragile decision boundaries. Third, we find that perturbations affect tasks differently: they harm reasoning when they disrupt how models combine coarse and fine visual cues, but on the hallucination benchmarks, they can reduce false positives by making models generate more conservative answers.