Guide Me Out: A Framework to Benchmark VLM Operators Communication in Crisis Scenarios

Theory of Space framework (ToS) assesses the spatial understanding of curiosity-driven Vision-Language Models (VLMs) under partial observability. As AI techniques are increasingly applied to safety-critical scenarios, it is crucial to understand whether VLMs possess robust spatial memory and make reliable decisions. In this paper, we assess whether VLMs' decisions are based on physical evidence or are corrupted by visual-language biases, if their memory processes align with human cognitive patterns, and how they respond to environmental hazards. We extend the ToS framework into a safety-critical, goal-driven pipeline, named Explore, Map, Remember, and Decide (EMRD). We then quantify Exploration Competence (Explore) through metrics of environmental coverage and temporal efficiency, assess Spatial Fidelity (Map), evaluate, with a suite of psychological metrics, Memory Persistence (Remember), and measure, using focal-point metrics, Cognitive Decision-Making (Decide). Our results show that in terms of decision-making capabilities, VLMs frequently select evacuation points based on pre-trained textual priors while lacking the spatial grounding to justify their choices. We also show that spatial reasoning degrades in low-light conditions, but it is not affected by texture and colour tampering. Our findings suggest that VLM memory fundamentally diverges from human cognition, creating unpredictable risks of misalignment.

Operational disaster response goes beyond damage assessment, requiring responders to integrate multi-sensor signals, reason over road networks, populations and key facilities, plan evacuations, and produce actionable reports. However, prior work largely isolates remote-sensing perception or evaluates generic tool use, leaving the end-to-end workflows of emergency operations underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Disaster Operational Response Agent benchmark (DORA), the first agentic benchmark for end-to-end disaster response: 515 expert-authored tasks across 45 real-world disaster events spanning 10 types, paired with expert-verified, replayable gold trajectories totaling 3,500 tool-call steps. Tasks span five dimensions that cover the operational disaster-response pipeline: disaster perception, spatial relational analysis, rescue and evacuation planning, temporal evolution reasoning, and multi-modal report synthesis. Agents compose calls from a 108-tool MCP library over heterogeneous geospatial data: optical, SAR, and multi-spectral imagery across single-, bi-, and multi-temporal sequences (0.015-10m GSD), complemented by elevation and social vector layers. We comprehensively evaluate 13 frontier LLMs on our benchmark, revealing three persistent challenges: 1) disaster-domain grounding exposes unique failure modes (damage-semantic grounding, sensor-modality mismatch, and disaster-pipeline composition); 2) agents are doubly bottlenecked by tool selection and argument grounding, where gold tool-order hints improve accuracy by only 1.08-4.40%, and alternative scaffolds yield at most a 3.24% gain; 3) compositional fragility scales with trajectory length, the agent-to-gold gap widening from 7% to 56% on long pipelines. DORA establishes a rigorous testbed for operationally reliable disaster-response agents.

We introduce WildRoadBench, a wild aerial road-damage grounding benchmark that couples direct visual grounding by vision-language models with autonomous research-and-engineering by LLM-driven agents on a single professionally annotated UAV corpus. The same image set and the same per-class AP_50 metric are evaluated under two protocols. The VLM Track measures whether a fixed VLM can localise domain-specific damage from one image and one short prompt under a unified prompting, decoding and parsing pipeline. The Agent Track measures whether an autonomous agent, given only a written task brief, a small exploratory slice and a fixed interaction budget, can search the public web, adapt pretrained components, write training and inference code, and submit predictions through a scalar-feedback oracle on a hidden holdout. We benchmark a broad pool of closed-source frontier models and open-source VLMs together with several frontier LLM-driven agents. Both routes remain far from reliable performance in this wild setting: closed-source frontier models lead the VLM leaderboard but still leave more than half of the metric on the table; open-source grounders plateau well below them, and newer generations or reasoning-style variants do not consistently improve grounding; small targets collapse for every open-source model; agents lag the strongest VLM despite richer affordances, and several fail to land a valid submission within the budget. We release the code and data at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/wildroadbench-0607 to support reproducible follow-up research.