Beyond Benchmarks: Using VLMs to Reveal Systematic Classification Failures Under Real World Conditions

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.

Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for agricultural classification, but zero-shot performance on disease, pest, damage, quality, and species identification remains poor, and it is unclear whether this reflects weak visual features or a failure to connect them to domain knowledge. We build a benchmark of 116 datasets, 834 classes, and 8,324 images spanning these tasks to isolate where the gap arises. Linear probing shows VLM vision encoders already encode agricultural features nearly as separable as a self-supervised DINOv3 baseline, ruling out weak visual representations as the primary bottleneck. Conditioning each model on an oracle reference description (an upper bound on its parametric knowledge) closes most of the gap left by an unaided lower bound, showing VLMs already know more about agriculture than they show. To close this gap without an oracle description at inference time, we structure test-time reasoning around a fixed, per-task diagnostic rubric: the model generates $K$ candidate responses and a Probabilistic Pivot Tournament (PPT) verifier, scored pairwise against the rubric, selects the best one. This nearly doubles judged F1 over the lower bound and matches or exceeds the upper bound on several tasks, notably pushing Gemma 4 E4B-it's disease F1 to 0.71, above its own upper bound of 0.60. However, the verifier's letter-scale confidence score has the opposite of its intended effect: filtering to its most confident predictions does not improve accuracy and correlates negatively with correctness across every model and pool size tested, so the score cannot serve as a measure of predictive uncertainty, and most of the observed gain likely comes from rubric-grounded generation rather than pairwise verification.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as reasoning agents in real-world visual assessment pipelines, yet their spatial grounding remains unreliable for fine-grained, visually ambiguous targets. We study this gap in the context of automated vehicle damage assessment, where fine-grained defects such as scratches and hairline cracks occupy few pixels, produce weak gradient signal, and are easily confused with reflections and surface texture. We show that a state-of-the-art VLM (Qwen-VL) achieves strong semantic classification accuracy (87.3%) on this task but is systematically ungrounded at the spatial level: it hallucinates damage in reflective regions, misses elongated scratches entirely, and produces spatially inconsistent outputs when prompted for localization. We propose TinyDamage, a hybrid architecture that delegates spatial grounding to a dedicated multi-task segmentation model while reserving the VLM for semantic reasoning and report generation. On the segmentation side, we find that the choice of loss function has an outsized and underexplored effect on tiny-object grounding: focal loss, widely used for class imbalance, collapses tiny-damage detection to zero, while a supervised contrastive objective measurably improves damage/background separability. We integrate the segmentation model into a 7-node LangGraph agent pipeline that grounds every VLM generation step in the segmentation output, and show that this grounding reduces the report hallucination rate from 92% (text-only) and 78% (image-only) to 31% in a controlled evaluation on 100 human-verified reports. We introduce DET_l, a permissive per-category detection metric for evaluating tiny-object grounding under class imbalance, and report latency and reliability characteristics of the deployed pipeline.