Task-Aligned Stability Analysis of Vision-Language Models for Autonomous Driving Hazard Detection

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models with integrated reasoning have been proposed for end-to-end autonomous driving, assuming a tight coupling between reasoning and trajectory generation. However, the robustness of such systems under realistic input perturbations remains largely unexplored. We show that these models are highly vulnerable to realistic input perturbations, achieving up to 89% attack success rate (ASR) on reasoning and up to 72% on trajectory manipulation in closed-loop simulation, leading to increased collision rates and degraded safety metrics. Using NVIDIA's recent Alpamayo models as representative industry-developed VLAs, we conduct the first systematic black-box study of reasoning-enabled VLA models under realistic textual input corruptions, evaluating their impact on reasoning and driving behavior. We introduce a reasoning-aware evaluation framework capturing both semantic and structural aspects of reasoning, along with safety-centric measures. We also introduce a benchmark for evaluating attacks and defenses on reasoning-trajectory interactions in autonomous driving. Our results highlight the need for rigorous evaluation and improved defenses to ensure the safety of reasoning-enabled VLA systems in autonomous driving.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used in autonomous driving because they combine visual perception with language-based reasoning, supporting more interpretable decision-making, yet their robustness to physical adversarial attacks, especially whether such attacks transfer across different VLM architectures, is not well understood and poses a practical risk when attackers do not know which model a vehicle uses. We address this gap with a systematic cross-architecture study of adversarial transferability in VLM-based driving, evaluating three representative architectures (Dolphins, OmniDrive, and LeapVAD) using physically realizable patches placed on roadside infrastructure in both crosswalk and highway scenarios. Our transfer-matrix evaluation shows high cross-architecture effectiveness, with transfer rates of 73-91% (mean TR = 0.815 for crosswalk and 0.833 for highway) and sustained frame-level manipulation over 64.7-79.4% of the critical decision window even when patches are not optimized for the target model.

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.