Vision language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on RGB imagery, but they do not generalize to thermal images. Thermal sensing plays a critical role in settings where visible light fails, including nighttime surveillance, search and rescue, autonomous driving, and medical screening. Unlike RGB imagery, thermal images encode physical temperature rather than color or texture, requiring perceptual and reasoning capabilities that existing RGB-centric benchmarks do not evaluate. We introduce ThermEval-B, a structured benchmark of approximately 55,000 thermal visual question answering pairs designed to assess the foundational primitives required for thermal vision language understanding. ThermEval-B integrates public datasets with our newly collected ThermEval-D, the first dataset to provide dense per-pixel temperature maps with semantic body-part annotations across diverse indoor and outdoor environments. Evaluating 25 open-source and closed-source VLMs, we find that models consistently fail at temperature-grounded reasoning, degrade under colormap transformations, and default to language priors or fixed responses, with only marginal gains from prompting or supervised fine-tuning. These results demonstrate that thermal understanding requires dedicated evaluation beyond RGB-centric assumptions, positioning ThermEval as a benchmark to drive progress in thermal vision language modeling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Thermal imagery enables critical perception tasks in settings where RGB fails, but VLMs trained predominantly on RGB exhibit systematic errors when applied to thermal images, driven by modality mismatch and language priors.
Dataset
Temp
BBox
Seg
Rel
Subj
Objective
Charlotte ( Ashrafi et al., 2022 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
10
Facial thermography
M3FD ( Liu et al., 2022 )
✗
✓
✗
✗
many
Multi-modal object detection
LCAS Physio. ( Cosar et al., 2018 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
5
Physiological monitoring
LCAS RGB-D-T ( Cosar and Bellotto, 2019 )
✓
✓
✗
✗
15
Human re-identification
FLIR ADAS ( FLIR, 2024 )
✗
✓
✗
✗
many
ADAS object detection
LLVIP ( Jia et al., 2021 )
✗
✓
✗
✗
many
Low-light pedestrian detection
Table 1. Comparison of thermal datasets, summarizing temperature data (Temp), bounding boxes (BBoxes), segmentation masks (Seg), annotator reliability (Rel), subject counts (Subj), and primary research objectives.
Figure 2. ThermEval defines seven evaluation tasks covering modality identification (T1–T2), human counting (T3), colorbar interpretation (T4), thermal reasoning (T5), and temperature estimation (T6–T7), designed to probe complementary aspects of thermal vision language understanding.
Task
Subtask
InternVL (Simple)
InternVL (Contextual)
MiniCPM (Simple)
MiniCPM (Contextual)
Qwen2.5-VL (Simple)
Qwen2.5-VL (Contextual)
BLIP-2 (Simple)
BLIP-2 (Contextual)
T1
FLIR (ACC ↑ )
0.96
0.97 ( +0.01 )
0.95
0.96 ( +0.01 )
0.71
0.96 ( +0.25 )
0.46
0.34 ( -0.12 )
LLVIP (ACC ↑ )
1.00
1.00 (+0.00)
0.98
0.99 ( +0.01 )
0.72
0.96 ( +0.24 )
0.22
0.43 ( +0.21 )
T2
FLIR (ACC ↑ )
0.86
0.99 ( +0.13 )
0.91
0.89 ( -0.02 )
0.61
0.98 ( +0.37 )
0.77
0.67 ( -0.10 )
LLVIP (ACC ↑ )
0.97
1.00 ( +0.03 )
0.93
0.95 ( +0.02 )
0.80
0.99 ( +0.19 )
0.77
0.77 (+0.00)
T3
FLIR (MAE ↓ )
2.70
2.53 ( -0.17 )
3.70
2.90 ( -0.80 )
3.78
3.20 ( -0.58 )
4.69
4.65 ( -0.04 )
LLVIP (AME ↓ )
0.73
0.60 ( -0.13 )
1.09
0.80 ( -0.29 )
1.09
0.88 ( -0.21 )
2.99
2.94 ( -0.05 )
Table 4. Performance of models before and after contextual prompt ablations. ↓ indicates lower and ↑ indicates higher is better. Colored deltas indicate improvement ( green ) or degradation ( red ) relative to the simple prompt.
Task
Subtask
Best Model (Zero-shot)
Human
Qwen 2.5 Zero-shot
Qwen 2.5 Finetuned
Qwen Δ
T1
FLIR (Acc ↑ )
1.00
0.97
0.98
1.00
+0.02
LLVIP (Acc ↑ )
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.00
T2
FLIR (Acc ↑ )
1.00
0.98
0.99
1.00
+0.01
LLVIP (Acc ↑ )
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.00
T3
FLIR (MAE ↓ )
2.72
1.73
3.55
1.85
−1.70
LLVIP (MAE ↓ )
0.51
0.30
0.89
0.55
−0.34
Table 5. Comparison of finetuned Qwen-VL 2.5 with human performance and other models. ↓ indicates lower is better and ↑ indicates higher is better. “–” indicates not applicable. Green in Qwen Δ column indicates improvement.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3. Images from ThermEval-D dataset. The top row shows the images having a single person in the scene whereas the second row shows the images having more than one person in the scene. Colorbars were added programatically during task evaluation
Metric
Annotator Pairs
Mean of Pairs
1 & 2
1 & 3
2 & 3
Bounding Box IoU
0.77
0.74
0.77
0.76
Segmentation IoU
0.72
0.71
0.73
0.72
Bounding Box Dice
0.87
0.85
0.87
0.86
Segmentation Dice
0.84
0.83
0.84
0.84
Appendix
Table 6. Inter-annotator agreement using IoU and Dice
Figure 4. Demonstrates some of the images from the FLIR-ADAS dataset, which is used for Tasks T-1, T-2, and T-3. Top row shows thermal images while the bottom shows RGB for different scenes. More information regarding the tasks could be obtained from section 3.1 .
Figure 5. Demonstrates some of the images from the LLVIP dataset, which is used for Tasks T-1, T-2, and T-3.Top row shows thermal images while the bottom shows RGB for different scenes. More information regarding the tasks could be obtained from section 3.1 .
ID
Task Name
Subtask / Source
# Samples
T1
Modality ID
FLIR, LLVIP
10,000
T2
Modality ID (Colormap)
FLIR, LLVIP
10,000
T3
Counting
FLIR, LLVIP
20,000
T4
Colorbar Inference
Detection
2,098
Position
4,196
Maximum
1,049
Appendix
Table 7. VQA sample counts and data sources per task in ThermEval.
Model
Params (B)
Gray
Magma
Spring
Summer
Viridis
FLIR
LLVIP
FLIR
LLVIP
FLIR
LLVIP
FLIR
LLVIP
FLIR
LLVIP
SMOL-256M
0.3
0.002
0.003
0.634
0.553
0.268
0.575
0.250
0.241
0.519
0.456
Jina-VLM
2.0
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
PaliGemma-2
3.0
0.995
0.997
1.000
1.000
0.992
1.000
0.915
1.000
1.000
1.000
Phi-3
4.0
0.262
0.669
0.978
0.910
0.865
0.931
0.907
0.863
0.936
0.937
Phi-3.5
4.0
0.751
0.899
1.000
0.992
1.000
1.000
0.995
1.000
1.000
0.998
Appendix
Table 8. Accuracy of VLMS on Task-2: Modality Identification under colormap transformation with results shown separately for FLIR and LLVIP datasets. Higher numbers are better.
Model
Params (B)
FLIR
LLVIP
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Bias *
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Bias *
RMSE ↓
SMOL-256M
0.3
4.31
5.56
-4.30
7.03
1.77
1.73
-1.63
2.38
Jina-VLM
2.0
3.82
5.22
-3.80
6.45
0.62
0.90
-0.45
1.01
PaliGemma-2
3.0
4.03
5.37
-4.01
6.70
1.02
1.30
-0.90
1.58
Phi-3
4.0
3.59
4.96
-3.52
6.08
1.22
1.23
-1.17
1.70
Phi-3.5
4.0
4.42
100.08
-2.14
100.10
1.07
1.16
-1.01
1.53
Appendix
Table 9. Regression metrics for Task-3 : Human Counting using FLIR and LLVIP datasets. ↓ indicates lower is better. *Bias closer to 0 is better.
Figure 6. Demonstrates various colormaps used for Task T-2. Colormaps used were ‘gray’, ‘magma’, ‘viridis’, ‘spring’ and ‘summer’
Model
Params (B)
Detection
Position
Extraction
Accuracy
Accuracy
Acc Max
Acc Min
Acc
MAE Max
MAE Min
MAE
SMOL-256M
0.3
0.414
0.000
0.990
0.824
0.907
0.22
3.0
1.61
Jina-VLM
2.0
1.00
0.994
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
PaliGemma-2
3.0
0.961
0.785
1.000
0.955
0.978
0.0
0.12
0.06
Phi-3
4.0
1.00
0.958
1.000
0.995
0.998
0.0
0.0
0.0
Phi-3.5
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.999
1.000
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 10. Model evaluation for Task-4: colorbar interpretation task, assessing the ability to detect, position, and extract temperature values. Acc Max and Acc Min denotes the accuracy of correctly identifying maximum and minimum values of the colorbar. MAE Max and MAE Min denotes the MAE is estimating Max and Min temperature of the colorbar.
Model
Params (B)
Arrow
Coordinates
Region
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
ChartGemma
3.0
3.84
5.05
1.19
4.91
13.74
28.06
8.43
26.77
2.33
3.44
-0.61
3.39
TinyCharts
3.0
5.66
6.64
-2.92
5.96
6.68
16.62
1.32
16.57
5.03
5.92
-0.27
5.92
ChartInstruct
7.0
3.96
5.94
-1.47
5.75
9.37
33.94
1.09
33.93
4.38
6.30
-0.81
6.25
SMOL-256M
0.3
5.74
6.87
5.35
4.31
11.26
33.12
5.45
32.67
3.37
4.55
1.95
4.11
Jina-VLM
2.0
3.26
4.34
0.37
4.32
4.22
14.95
-1.12
14.90
1.95
2.83
-0.16
2.83
Appendix
Table 11. Regression metrics for Task-6: Temperature Estimation on ThermEval Dataset. ↓ indicates lower is better. *Bias closer to 0 is better.
Model
Params (B)
2ft
6ft
10ft
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
BIAS *
STD ↓
ChartGemma
3.0
1.20
1.49
-0.66
1.33
1.02
1.28
-0.30
1.25
1.08
1.36
0.06
1.36
TinyCharts
3.0
3.51
4.12
1.12
3.96
3.40
3.79
2.04
3.19
3.53
3.79
2.70
2.66
ChartInstruct
7.0
2.96
3.18
-1.45
2.83
2.76
2.98
-1.62
2.50
2.37
2.66
-1.75
2.01
SMOL-256M
0.3
2.40
2.85
0.72
2.75
2.67
3.02
0.35
3.00
2.45
2.82
0.26
2.81
Jina-VLM
0.3
1.24
1.57
-0.97
1.23
1.05
1.31
-0.90
0.96
0.81
1.01
-0.56
0.83
Appendix
Table 12. Regression metrics for Task-7: Temperature Estimation at varying depth on ThermEval dataset. ↓ indicates lower is better. *Bias closer to 0 is better.
Figure 7. Illustration of how a thermal image gets augmented for co-ordinate and arrow/marker based subtask
Figure 8. MAE of counterfactual temperature estimation vs. perturbation across regions. Red and green curves represent the model before and after fine-tuning, respectively. "Overall" denotes the aggregate across forehead, chest, and nose.
Error
OVERALL
FOREHEAD
CHEST
NOSE
No FT
After FT
No FT
After FT
No FT
After FT
No FT
After FT
1
2.38
1.28
2.41
1.27
2.54
1.05
2.15
1.55
2
2.19
1.68
2.11
1.58
2.50
1.38
1.93
2.14
3
1.86
2.28
1.65
2.16
2.13
1.87
1.79
2.92
-1
3.61
1.42
3.95
1.40
3.24
1.56
3.61
1.27
-2
4.36
2.15
4.98
2.17
3.70
2.30
4.39
1.94
Appendix
Table 13. Comparison of MAE Results: Without Fine-Tuning vs. After Fine-Tuning
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Vision-language models (VLMs) often fail under low illumination because their visual grounding is learned predominantly from RGB imagery, whereas thermal infrared preserves complementary scene structure when visible cues degrade. We present Thermo-VL, a wavelength-aware VLM that augments a frozen Molmo-7B backbone with a trainable thermal encoder and a text-guided dual-attention fusion module. Given aligned RGB tokens, thermal tokens, and prompt embeddings, the fusion module conditions thermal features on both language and RGB context, then injects a gated residual into the frozen RGB stream so thermal evidence can be incorporated without disrupting Molmo's pretrained RGB-language interface. We train the model with the standard language-modeling objective together with auxiliary alignment and regularization losses that improve cross-modal grounding and reduce over-reliance on RGB. We also introduce a pixel-aligned RGB-thermal instruction-tuning dataset and Thermo-VL-Bench, a manually screened RGB-thermal VQA benchmark for low-light and cross-spectrum reasoning. Experiments show strong gains on challenging thermal-only and RGB+thermal reasoning tasks, highlighting the value of prompt-conditioned multispectral fusion. Our dataset and code are publicly available at: https://thusharakart.github.io/Thermo-VL
Rusiru Thushara, Yasiru Ranasinghe, Jay Paranjape +1
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 USA
Thermal imaging offers a powerful alternative to visible-spectrum vision under challenging conditions such as low illumination and adverse weather, yet foundational vision-language models like CLIP fail to align thermal images with textual descriptions due to a fundamental thermal perception gap. We identify three major challenges: the lack of captioned thermal datasets, the inability of standard LLMs to reason about thermal phenomena, and a key representational challenge in thermal imaging where global scene context and object-level heat signatures conflict when learned together in a single embedding space. To address these, we introduce IR-Cap, the first physics-aware thermal captioning pipeline and dataset providing complementary global and fine-grained thermal descriptions across three public benchmarks, and T-CLIP, a decoupled dual-LoRA framework that independently adapts CLIP for scene-level and object-level thermal understanding. T-CLIP achieves consistent improvements over all baselines across three thermal benchmarks in cross-modal retrieval, and we provide an exploratory demonstration of its applicability to text-conditioned thermal image generation.
Thermal cameras enable robots to perceive human activities in darkness while revealing less personally identifiable appearance information and fewer details of the surrounding environment than RGB cameras. As vision-language models (VLMs), originally developed for RGB imagery, are increasingly integrated into embodied systems for scene understanding and high-level planning, thermal sensing offers a promising way to extend activity perception to low-light and privacy-sensitive settings. However, the failure modes of VLMs in thermal human activity understanding for human-robot interaction (HRI) remain underexplored. We fill this gap by evaluating seven locally deployable VLMs, including models developed for physical AI and robotics, on two person-centric thermal datasets. Our diagnostic tasks examine fine-grained action recognition, activity timeline reconstruction, and the ability to withhold unsupported answers. Paired RGB recordings serve as a performance reference, while controlled variations in frame sampling, thermal input presentation, and reasoning are used to assess whether the observed errors can be mitigated. Our results show that models can recognize broad activity categories but struggle with fine-grained actions such as coughing, sneezing, and yawning. They also produce inaccurate event timelines and hallucinate actions involving objects. Simple thermal input preprocessing and additional reasoning offer only limited, model-dependent gains. Abstention behavior also varies across models even under explicit instructions, limiting their reliability for practical robotic use.
Han Hu, He Chen
Department of Information Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.