Understanding the Effects of Distractors on Reasoning Vision-Language Models

Reasoning Vision-Language Models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on complex multimodal tasks, but reliable real-world application requires handling visual inputs that are messier than clean, curated benchmarks. Existing works mainly evaluate such reliability of VLMs through input corruptions, such as noise, blur and weather effects, which make visual evidence harder to perceive. This leaves a critical reliability failure mode underexplored: a model may perceive the evidence correctly, yet reason from plausible but irrelevant and distracting evidence and propagate this mistake to its final answer. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{Distract-Bench}, a benchmark for evaluating VLM robustness to \textbf{semantic visual distractions}, defined as meaningful but task-irrelevant visual cues added to inputs while preserving the ground-truth answer. We comprehensively evaluate eight leading open-source and two closed-source VLMs across conventional vision corruptions and Distract-Bench. Our results show that Distract-Bench exposes a robustness failure distinct from vision corruptions: reasoning VLMs largely track their non-reasoning base models under perceptual degradation, but show consistently lower robustness to semantic distractions. Further analysis shows that these distractions often enter the reasoning process of VLMs, are treated as evidence, and lead to incorrect answers. Together, these findings reframe robustness evaluation for reasoning VLMs, shifting the focus from degraded perception to distractions for reliable real-world visual reasoning. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/Yizheng-Sun/Distract-Bench.

Reasoning in vision-language models (VLMs) has recently attracted significant attention due to its broad applicability across diverse downstream tasks. However, it remains unclear whether the superior performance of VLMs stems from genuine vision-grounded reasoning or relies predominantly on the reasoning capabilities of their textual backbones. To systematically measure this, we introduce CrossMath, a novel multimodal reasoning benchmark designed for controlled cross-modal comparisons. Specifically, we construct each problem in text-only, image-only, and image+text formats guaranteeing identical task-relevant information, verified by human annotators. This rigorous alignment effectively isolates modality-specific reasoning differences while eliminating confounding factors such as information mismatch. Extensive evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a consistent phenomenon: a substantial performance gap between textual and visual reasoning. Notably, VLMs excel with text-only inputs, whereas incorporating visual data (image+text) frequently degrades performance compared to the text-only baseline. These findings indicate that current VLMs conduct reasoning primarily in the textual space, with limited genuine reliance on visual evidence. To mitigate this limitation, we curate a CrossMath training set for VLM fine-tuning. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that fine-tuning on this training set significantly boosts reasoning performance across all individual and joint modalities, while yielding robust gains on two general visual reasoning tasks. Source code is available at https://github.com/xuyige/CrossMath.

Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.