Sorry Robot, Happy Human: Vision-Language Models Read Only One of Two Legible Typographic Layers
Authors: Mert İncidelen, Yamen Kashkash, Asya Berker, Murat Aydoğan
Organizations: Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Engineering, Fırat University, Elazığ, Türkiye · Department of Software Engineering, Fırat University, Elazığ, Türkiye
Vision-language models (VLMs), despite their success in optical character recognition (OCR) tasks, are vulnerable to typographic attacks and have a fragile structure for images with multiple text layers. In this study, the DecoyBench dataset was created using the Decoy Font method. The dataset consists of 300 images, each containing text with sharp contour lines superimposed on another text with soft shading. Six recent closed-source models from three different model families were evaluated using this dataset under two different prompting conditions (naive and guided) and at two different resolutions (512×512 and 64×64). A validation study showed that human participants could read both text layers with high accuracy. In contrast, the models, with most variants and both prompting methods, read the contour text with near-human accuracy at high resolution, but almost never fully extracted the shading text. At low resolution, the contour text could not be read by either the models or humans, while the shading text could be extracted with high accuracy. The findings indicate that the evaluated VLMs exhibit a consistent behavioral limitation when processing typographic structures containing multiple spatial frequency layers.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example image created using Decoy Font. It features superimposed contour text of “SORRY ROBOT” and shading text of “HAPPY HUMAN”.
Metric
Value
Total Text Pairs
300
Mean Char Length
16.9
Mean Word Count
3.8
Mean Jaccard Similarity
0.06
Total Unique Vocabulary
576
Table 1: Summary statistics of the DecoyBench dataset.
Resolution
Human Accuracy EM (%)
Contour
Shading
Both Layers
512×512
99.7
96.3
96.0
64×64
0.0
98.7
0.0
Table 2: Human reading accuracy by layer.
Model
Prompt
512×512
64×64
Contour
Shading
Contour
Shading
EM
LS
EM
LS
EM
LS
EM
LS
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Naive
93.0
0.981
0.0
0.010
0.0
0.000
100.0
1.000
Guided
94.0
0.992
0.0
0.256
0.0
0.028
98.7
0.996
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Naive
96.3
0.992
0.0
0.001
0.0
0.000
100.0
1.000
Guided
96.0
0.997
0.7
0.320
0.0
0.117
100.0
1.000
Table 3: Transcription accuracy (EM, LS) for the contour and shading text layers, across six models, two prompting strategies, and two resolutions.
Model
Prompt
Avg. Extracted Texts
512×512
64×64
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Naive
1.09
1.00
Guided
1.99
1.13
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Naive
1.02
1.00
Guided
1.87
1.38
GPT-5.6 Luna
Naive
1.70
1.01
Table 4: Average number of text outputs generated by VLMs.