Lost in the Vibrations: Vision Language Models Fail the Dynamic Gauges Test

For trained operators, gauge reading requires little specialized knowledge, low cognitive effort, and high repeatability. Yet Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) remain unreliable in continuous-valued measurement despite strong results on general multimodal benchmarks. Existing benchmarks expose this weakness but isolate measurement from realistic, knowledge-grounded settings, with limited situated context, specialized instruments, real-world noise, and matched diagnostic annotations, reducing realism and constraining root-cause analysis. We introduce InSituMeasure to evaluate situated measurement grounding. It contains 2,922 real industrial monitoring scenes across eight functional categories of professional engineering instruments, with dense gauge-attribute annotations and noise tags for failure diagnosis. We define metrics for numerical accuracy under predefined tolerances and unit consistency, rejection of fake or unanswerable tasks, and alignment between model failures and annotated error factors. Across 24 state-of-the-art MLLMs, the best model reaches only 25.7% joint value-unit accuracy and 51.8% confidence-diagnosis F1, revealing a substantial gap between general multimodal competence and reliable situated measurement. Further analysis identifies failures from text-induced shortcuts, overconfident responses, and authentic industrial noise, including mixed disturbances, viewpoint deviation, occlusion, and environmental interference.

Recent advances in robot world models enable synthetic video generation for embodied prediction and planning. However, evaluating these videos is challenging: visually realistic outputs often violate physical laws, temporal consistency, or task logic, while conventional metrics and monolithic Vision-Language Model (VLM) judges fail to generalize or provide precise diagnostic value. We present RoboGaze, a training-free, multi-agent VLM framework that provides structured, interpretable evaluation for generated robot-manipulation videos. Given a task instruction and video, RoboGaze operates via a three-stage pipeline: task-scene grounding, dimension-specific specialist routing, and critic-based verification. It outputs temporally localized glitch reports categorized under a novel 6-dimension, 30-type robotics-specific taxonomy. To benchmark RoboGaze, we introduce a human-validated dataset of 382 clips spanning simulated and real-world multi-view manipulation. Evaluating eight open-source and proprietary VLM backbones, RoboGaze dramatically outperforms zero-shot baselines, improving description-F1 by up to +43 points and temporal alignment (F1 x IoU) by up to +37 points, closing approximately 85% of the gap to the human ceiling. Furthermore, its critic verifier mitigates the "cry-wolf" false-positive flaw of standard VLMs, lifting clean-clip accuracy from under 25% to over 80%. RoboGaze offers a scalable, highly interpretable diagnostic tool for the rigorous evaluation of robot world models.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are well known for hallucinating non-existent objects in images. Objects with missing parts present a unique challenge for VLMs, stemming from both real-world knowledge bias and the scarcity of such images in training data. We present MissingBench-Verified, a benchmark designed to evaluate a specific and practically relevant scenario: when vision-language models fail to recognize that an essential component of an object has been removed. Across ten leading models, we observe consistent and significant failure rates that persist even when external tool evidence explicitly contradicts the model's visual perception. We further ask whether granting models access to image processing tools (e.g., cropping, contrast adjustment) enables autonomous inspection to resolve these failures. We find that existing mitigation strategies, including tool-assisted verification, autonomous visual reasoning, longer reasoning durations, and fine-tuning on an easier dataset, provide negligible improvement, indicating that this failure mode cannot be addressed through current prompting or post-hoc correction techniques. Our findings highlight a fundamental limitation of current VLM for inspection and monitoring tasks and underscore the need for architectural or training-level interventions that enable models to override internal expectations when confronted with contradictory evidence.