On Robustness and Chain-of-Thought Consistency of RL-Finetuned VLMs

Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning is now widely used to improve LLM reasoning, and recent work has begun extending it to vision-language models (VLMs). While RL-tuned VLMs can improve visual reasoning benchmark performance, they can still suffer from weak visual grounding, hallucinations, and over-reliance on textual cues. We show that simple, controlled textual perturbations—misleading captions or incorrect chain-of-thought (CoT) traces—cause substantial drops in robustness and confidence, and that these effects are more pronounced when CoT consistency is taken into account across open-source multimodal reasoning models. Entropy-based metrics further show that these perturbations reshape model uncertainty on the correct option, exposing model-specific trends in miscalibration. To better understand these vulnerabilities, we further analyze RL fine-tuning dynamics and uncover an accuracy–faithfulness trade-off: fine-tuning raises benchmark accuracy, but can simultaneously erode the reliability of the accompanying CoT and its robustness to contextual shifts. Although adversarial augmentation improves robustness, it does not by itself prevent faithfulness drift. Incorporating a faithfulness-aware reward can restore alignment between answers and reasoning, but when paired with augmentation, training risks collapsing onto shortcut strategies and robustness remains elusive. Together, these findings highlight the limitations of accuracy-only evaluations and motivate training and assessment protocols that jointly emphasize correctness, robustness, and the faithfulness of visually grounded reasoning.