DistortBench: Benchmarking Vision Language Models on Image Distortion Identification

Low-level visual perception underpins reliable remote sensing (RS) image analysis, yet current image quality assessment (IQA) methods output uninterpretable scalar scores rather than characterizing physics-driven RS degradations, deviating markedly from the diagnostic needs of RS experts. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) present a compelling alternative by delivering language-grounded IQA, their visual priors are heavily biased toward ground-level natural images. Consequently, whether VLMs can overcome this domain gap to perceive and articulate RS artifacts remains insufficiently studied. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{SenseBench}, the first dedicated diagnostic benchmark for RS low-level visual perception and description. Driven by a physics-based hierarchical taxonomy that unifies both non-reference and reference-based paradigms, SenseBench features over 10K meticulously curated instances across 6 major and 22 fine-grained RS degradation categories. Specifically, two complementary protocols are designed for evaluation: objective low-level visual \textit{perception} and subjective diagnostic \textit{description}. Comprehensive evaluation of 29 state-of-the-art VLMs reveals not only skewed domain priors and multi-distortion collapse, but also \textit{fluency illusion} and a \textit{perception-description inversion} effect. We hope SenseBench provides a robust evaluation testbed and high-quality diagnostic data to advance the development of VLMs in RS low-level perception. Code and datasets are available \href{https://github.com/Zhong-Chenchen/SenseBench}{\textcolor{blue}{here}}.

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.

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.