Beyond Balanced Accuracy: A Resolution and Parity-Controlled Benchmark for Vision-Language and Vision-Only Defect Assessment in UAV Power-Line Inspection

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed on consumer hardware where input images are degraded by compression, camera shake, and poor lighting. In such settings, a reliable uncertainty signal matters more than raw accuracy, because it determines when a system should defer rather than answer. We evaluate two small open-weight VLMs -- Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct and SmolVLM-Instruct -- across six realistic photographic degradations at three severity levels, comparing two confidence signals: the confidence the model states in natural language, and the model's own mean token probability over its generated answer. Across 3,800 predictions, we find a large and consistent gap. Verbalized confidence in Qwen2-VL is almost constant (mean 0.87-0.90 across all conditions) and detects its own errors at chance level (AUROC 0.39-0.75, typically ~0.50), while internal token probability from the same model separates correct from incorrect answers with AUROC 0.92-0.99. In SmolVLM, verbalized confidence proved largely unobtainable: across three prompt templates, only one of five pilot attempts produced a parseable confidence value, while internal probability again yielded above-chance error detection (AUROC 0.54-0.92). Both models fail in the same place: under severe underexposure, accuracy collapses (0.99->0.22 for Qwen2-VL, 0.97->0.42 for SmolVLM) while both confidence signals barely move, and internal error-detection falls to chance. We conclude that small VLMs encode usable self-knowledge that their verbalized output does not express, that internal probability is therefore the better deferral signal in constrained deployment, and that neither signal should be trusted under severe low-light 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.

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.