SABRE: Scalable and Automated Benchmarking of VLMs under Stress

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown strong visual understanding and are increasingly deployed in embodied AI systems, where reliable perception under real conditions is essential. However, existing benchmarks assess VLMs using clean images or isolated perturbations rather than stresses caused by physical scene formation. This design has two limitations: it covers only a narrow subset of everyday visual stresses, and some perturbations rarely appear in realistic embodied scenes. This gap raises a fundamental question: how can we define visual stress in a principled way that captures the diverse factors encountered in physical environments? To address this question, we formulate visual perception from an inverse graphics perspective and introduce RoboStressBench, a benchmark for evaluating VLM robustness to physical visual stress in embodied scenes. Inspired by the physical rendering equation, RoboStressBench decomposes visual stress into four physically grounded dimensions: Material (M), Viewpoint (V), Lighting (L), and Geometry (G). This design enables RoboStressBench to cover a broad range of visual stresses in real-world environments, while allowing controlled analysis of their effects on VLM capabilities such as visual recognition, reasoning, and planning. Through comprehensive evaluations of state-of-the-art VLMs, we identify stress-specific failure modes and reveal that different physical factors degrade different embodied capabilities, which are often obscured by aggregate accuracy. We further introduce a stress-aware agentic solver that detects visual stressors and invokes visual-editing skills before reasoning, improving robustness in high-stress scenarios. Overall, RoboStressBench provides a principled evaluation framework for diagnosing and improving VLM perception under real-world physical stress, supporting the development of more reliable embodied AI systems.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed where answers must follow from what is in the image, yet they often answer from textual priors, the question's phrasing together with memorized world knowledge, rather than from the image itself, which inflates benchmark scores and yields confident but ungrounded answers. Existing benchmarks rarely isolate this behavior, since each image is usually paired with a single fixed question. To measure the reliance, we build a 540-image benchmark across six reasoning categories and generate four question variants over the same images, so that phrasing rather than image content is the controlled variable. The hardest variant is written directly from the image to minimize text leakage. We benchmark eleven VLMs spanning small open-weight models to large closed-source systems: every model degrades on the hardest variant, and open models fall furthest. Our central diagnostic is a no-image ablation, which collapses the open-weight models to their text-only floor (1 to 9 percent). Three further analyses, LLM-rated difficulty, low base-to-final textual similarity, and human re-annotation, corroborate genuine image-dependence. In-context exemplars that match how a variant was built recover the most accuracy, and GRPO post-training of a small VLM yields consistent gains across all four variants that transfer to a held-out out-of-distribution set. Textual-prior reliance is measurable and partly trainable away.

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.