MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416035530 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1379

CAVE : Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environments

2025· article· en· W4416035530 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAnomaly detectionCavePerceptionVisual reasoningCommonsense reasoningVisualizationCognitionResource (disambiguation)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

CAVE: Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environment 🏠 Project Page📄 Paper (EMNLP 2025)💻 Code Dataset Details Dataset Description CAVE is the first benchmark of real-world visual anomalies for evaluating Vision-Language Models (VLMs). It is curated from images captured in real-life settings (photographs and screenshots taken by individuals), sourced from Reddit. The benchmark is grounded in cognitive science literature on how humans detect and resolve anomalies. Each image is annotated with rich, multi-task annotations that support three open-ended tasks (anomaly description, explanation, and justification), one visual grounding task (anomaly localization via bounding boxes), and classification along four dimensions (anomaly category, severity, surprisal, and complexity) that characterize the anomaly. CAVE reveals that state-of-the-art VLMs struggle substantially with visual anomaly perception and commonsense reasoning: the best model (GPT-4o) achieves only ~57% F1-score on anomaly detection even with advanced prompting strategies. Curated by: Rishika Bhagwatkar, Syrielle Montariol, Angelika Romanou, Beatriz Borges, Irina Rish, Antoine Bosselut Affiliations: EPFL, MILA Language: English License: CC-BY-4.0 Published at: EMNLP 2025 (Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing) Dataset Sources Project Page: https://smontariol.github.io/cave-visual-anomalies/ Paper: CAVE: Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environments Contact: rishika.bhagwatkar@mila.quebec, syrielle.montariol@epfl.ch Uses Intended Uses CAVE is designed to evaluate VLMs on their ability to: Detect real-world commonsense anomalies in images (anomaly description). Explain why a detected situation is anomalous (anomaly explanation). Justify how an anomaly might have occurred (anomaly justification). Localize anomalies within images via bounding boxes (anomaly localization). Classify anomalies by their visual manifestation type and numerical features (severity, surprisal, complexity). It also serves as a resource for studying the alignment between human and machine processing of visual anomalies, and for developing improved prompting strategies or fine-tuning approaches for anomaly-related tasks. Out-of-Scope Uses CAVE is a benchmark for evaluation purposes. Its small size (361 images) makes it unsuitable as a training set. It should not be used to deploy anomaly detection systems in safety-critical settings without additional validation. Dataset Structure Overview CAVE consists of 361 images: 309 anomalous and 52 normal (non-anomalous) images. Anomalous images contain up to 3 anomalies each, totaling 334 annotated anomalies. Each anomaly is paired with a unique bounding box. Annotation Fields Each sample includes the following fields: Field Description image The image (photograph or screenshot) image_description Short description of the image content (without describing the anomaly) anomaly_description Textual description of what is anomalous in the image anomaly_explanation Explanation of why the situation is anomalous (commonsense reasoning) anomaly_justification Plausible explanation of how the anomaly might have occurred anomaly_category Category of the anomaly's visual manifestation (see taxonomy below) bounding_box Coordinates of the bounding box demarcating the anomalous region severity 1–5 score: does the anomaly require immediate action? surprisal 1–5 score: how much does the situation deviate from expectations? complexity 1–5 score: how hard is the anomaly to detect? Anomaly Category Taxonomy Anomalies are categorized by how they visually manifest, inspired by MMBench's taxonomy of visual reasoning types: Category Description Example Entity Presence An object is present when it shouldn't be A black bear in an industrial building Entity Absence An expected object is missing A person using a cutter without protective gear Entity Attribute An object has an anomalous attribute (color, shape, label, orientation, usage) A snack packet opened from the wrong side Spatial Relation An object is incorrectly positioned relative to another Furniture blocking an emergency button Uniformity Breach A disruption in an expected uniform/symmetrical pattern One tile with a different orientation Textual Anomaly Text in the image conveys an unexpected or contradictory message A "KEEP RIGHT" sign with an arrow pointing left Dataset Creation Images were collected from four Reddit subreddits that specialize in content featuring unusual or uncommon situations: r/ocdtriggers r/mildlyconfusing r/mildlyinfuriating r/OSHA The top 1,000 posts from each subreddit were downloaded using the PRAW library. Images were filtered through both automatic and manual processes to remove: Unclear or ambiguous content Non-realistic images NSFW or sensitive content Images with text annotations, circles, or other overlaid marks Images below icon resolution Annotation proceeded in two rounds, with Amazon Mechanical Turk followed by Expert Verification & Consolidation, with 3 independent raters per anomaly for severity, surprisal, and complexity scores. Citation @inproceedings{bhagwatkar-etal-2025-cave, title = "{CAVE} : Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environments", author = "Bhagwatkar, Rishika and Montariol, Syrielle and Romanou, Angelika and Borges, Beatriz and Rish, Irina and Bosselut, Antoine", booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing", month = nov, year = "2025", publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics", url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.1379/", doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1379", pages = "27110--27151", } Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support from Canada CIFAR AI Chair Program, Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program, Swiss National Science Foundation (No. 215390), Innosuisse (PFFS-21-29), EPFL Center for Imaging, Sony Group Corporation, and a Meta LLM Evaluation Research Grant. Computational resources were provided by MILA - Quebec AI Institute.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,453
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,290

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,278
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207