Are Video Reasoning Models Ready to Go Outside?

Video reasoning language models implicitly assume that every input frame is equally reliable. This leads to what we term the Blind Trust Problem: under realistic perturbations such as motion blur, glare, or occlusion, frontier video reasoning models can suffer 15-30%p accuracy drops on real-world embodied benchmarks, while remaining unaware that their visual evidence has been degraded. To address this challenge, we propose Robust-TO, an agentic video understanding framework that explicitly integrates per-frame trustworthiness into every stage of reasoning. Robust-TO organizes heterogeneous visual perception tools under a unified evidence interface. Each tool receives a sub-query derived from the original question and a set of trustworthy frames selected by the reliability-relevance score. It returns evidence in a shared format: a concrete prediction (e.g., a bounding box, motion trajectory, recognized text, or action label), temporal grounding, and a calibrated reliability score. During reasoning, these calibrated scores guide evidence weighting in a three-tier synthesis process (high/medium/low) and define a confidence-cost GRPO reward that jointly optimizes correctness, evidence reliability, and efficiency. On two video reasoning benchmarks spanning eight tasks, Robust-TO achieves 56.4% average accuracy on clean inputs, surpassing the strongest open-source baseline by 10.6%p and outperforming Gemini-2.5-Pro (46.2%). Under five realistic corruption types, Robust-TO maintains 54.3% average accuracy, 5.8%p above the strongest open-source baseline, while exhibiting the smallest clean-to-corrupted accuracy drop among all compared methods.

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.

Does adding a reasoning step make a Vision-Language-Action (VLA) model more robust to perturbation? Intuitively, a policy that reasons before acting should absorb a perturbed input better than one that maps observations directly to actions. We test this premise head-on across three models that span the reasoning spectrum (no reasoning, a text chain-of-thought, and a latent iterative loop), perturbing each at the vision, reasoning, and action stages on LIBERO and SimplerEnv. Two questions organize the study: does the reasoning design shift robustness, and can the reasoning be read back at runtime as a safety signal? We find that the latent-iterative model is by far the least robust: under both stochastic noise and white-box perturbation its task success collapses, while the other two hold. This fragility is structural rather than cumulative: varying the reasoning depth at inference barely moves it. Reasoning outputs can in principle be monitored, but the monitors fail under fair tests. A plan--action consistency probe that looks near-perfect under naive evaluation falls to chance under adaptive attack. Under matched-FPR calibration, fusing it with an action-anomaly probe never lifts defended success above undefended. Scoped to these output-level behavioral probes under white-box vision-stage attack, this ceiling is a precondition that any viable defense must first satisfy.