Spatial Colour Mixing Illusions as a Perception Stress Test for Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on standard, high-quality datasets, but we still do not fully understand how they perform under real-world image distortions. We present VLM-RobustBench, a benchmark spanning 49 augmentation types across noise, blur, weather, digital, and geometric perturbations, evaluated under graded severities (low/mid/high) and binary transforms, yielding 133 corrupted settings. We evaluate VLMs from four families (Qwen, InternVL, Molmo, Gemma) on two complementary benchmarks: MMBench (visually grounded) and MMMU-Pro (reasoning-oriented). Our results reveal that visual severity is a weak predictor of difficulty: low-severity spatial perturbations often degrade performance more than visually severe photometric corruptions. In particular, low-severity glass_blur reduces MMBench accuracy by about 8 pp on average across models, while the largest drops arise from resampling and geometric distortions (e.g., upsample, elastic_transform), reaching up to 34 pp. Overall, our findings suggest current VLMs are semantically strong but spatially fragile, motivating the definition of novel robustness evaluation protocols and training regimes that emphasize resampling and geometric invariances.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used in settings where sensitivity to low-level image degradations matters, including content moderation, image restoration, and quality monitoring. Yet their ability to recognize distortion type and severity remains poorly understood. We present DistortBench, a diagnostic benchmark for no-reference distortion perception in VLMs. DistortBench contains 13,500 four-choice questions covering 27 distortion types, six perceptual categories, and five severity levels: 25 distortions inherit KADID-10k calibrations, while two added rotation distortions use monotonic angle-based levels. We evaluate 18 VLMs, including 17 open-weight models from five families and one proprietary model. Despite strong performance on high-level vision-language tasks, the best model reaches only 61.9% accuracy, just below the human majority-vote baseline of 65.7% (average individual: 60.2%), indicating that low-level perceptual understanding remains a major weakness of current VLMs. Our analysis further reveals weak and non-monotonic scaling with model size, performance drops in most base--thinking pairs, and distinct severity-response patterns across model families. We hope DistortBench will serve as a useful benchmark for measuring and improving low-level visual perception in VLMs.

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.