Vision-language models (VLMs) have made strong progress on high-level image-text alignment, yet their ability to perceive subtle visual differences remains limited. We study this problem in rendered web interfaces, where localized visual changes are both a diagnostic test of fine-grained perception and a practical requirement for GUI agents and design tools. We introduce \textbf{DiffSpot}, a code-driven benchmark for open-ended spot-the-difference on web interfaces. DiffSpot constructs controlled image pairs by mutating a single CSS property of a target element in self-contained HTML, re-rendering the page, and recording the changed property, element, and mutation magnitude. A grounding gate retains only pairs whose rendered pixel difference is confined to the target element. The benchmark contains 4{,}400 pairs, including 3{,}900 has-diff pairs balanced across 13 CSS-property operators and three difficulty tiers, plus 500 no-diff pairs for hallucination control. Evaluating 13 frontier VLMs zero-shot, we find that even the best model identifies only 40.7% of true changes, with Hard-tier Recall below 23% for every model. DiffSpot further shows that difficulty is strongly property-dependent: across CSS operators, neither pixel magnitude nor CLIP distance reliably predicts Recall.
Visual regression testing (VRT) is a standard quality assurance step in modern software release pipelines. On every change, it re-renders user interface (UI) screenshots, compares each one against an approved baseline image, and routes any detected difference to a human reviewer who decides whether it is an intended update or an unintended regression. A widely used approach, especially in open-source and continuous-integration pipelines, is pixel-level comparison, which is semantically blind and treats rendering noise and genuine defects identically, producing large volumes of false positives that force developers and testers to spend substantial time and effort manually reviewing flagged differences at every release cycle. Industry tools apply machine learning to VRT, but lack public evaluation. More critically, no dataset or benchmark exists to support natural language descriptions of UI changes, a capability that tells testers what changed in words instead of leaving them to interpret a binary flag or a highlighted region. To address the gap, we propose a new task, Web UI Image Change Captioning (WUICC), which sits at the intersection of VRT and image difference captioning (IDC), and release WUICC-bench, its first dataset and benchmark for the task. We evaluate eleven representative IDC methods, together with two zero-shot general-purpose LLMs. We find that: (1) these methods tend to struggle in the Web UI domain due to its layout diversity, dense text, and fine-grained changes, and (2) yet the trained methods already suppress non-meaningful visual noise far more selectively than the pixel-level comparison VRT relies on, providing a solid foundation for future domain-specific research.
Recent vision-language models (VLMs) excel at multimodal understanding and reasoning, yet their fine-grained visual perception remains underexplored. A natural extension of ``How many r are there in Strawberry?'' asks: how small a visual pattern can a VLM reliably perceive? As such, we introduce FineSightBench, a new benchmark that systematically probes this limit by separating perception tasks (pixel-level recognition of letters, shapes, objects) from reasoning tasks (spatial reasoning, counting, ordering over small targets) across controlled scales of 4--48px. Through comprehensive experiments and detailed failure mode analysis on state-of-the-art models, we reveal a sharp dissociation: perception saturates around 12px, while reasoning remains limited even at larger scales, with persistent numeracy and sequence errors. These findings expose fundamental deficiencies in VLMs' fine-scale visual reasoning that demand more rigorous evaluation.
Benchmark accuracy is often implicitly assumed to reflect grounded visual understanding in vision-language models (VLMs), yet it remains unclear to what extent such scores truly reflect reliance on visual evidence. Motivated by a surprising observation that removing a substantial fraction of image tokens only degrades model performance very slightly on a widely used hallucination benchmark, we systematically investigate this mismatch in a set of open-source VLMs. Our analysis spans multiple levels of granularity, spanning global visual degradation, localized occlusion, question reformulation, answer-space expansion, and decision-level analyses beyond standard accuracy. We further complement these behavioral results with a layer-wise analysis of vision-token geometry. Throughout the experiments, we find that although VLMs do incorporate visual input, their predictions are less sensitive to the loss of fine-grained visual evidence that standard accuracy should have suggested. Even when the final prediction remains unchanged, the model's internal support for the correct answer may already be weakened. We further complement a representation-level analysis, which shows increasing similarity among visual tokens in deeper layers, providing a possible explanation for our findings. Together, these results suggest that current benchmarks are not sufficient to reliably evaluate fine-grained visual grounding in VLMs.