CAVE : Detecting and Explaining Commonsense Anomalies in Visual Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans can naturally identify, reason about, and explain anomalies in their environment. In computer vision, this long-standing challenge remains limited to industrial defects or unrealistic, synthetically generated anomalies, failing to capture the richness and unpredictability of real-world anomalies. In this work, we introduce CAVE, the first benchmark of real-world commonsense anomalies. CAVE supports three open-ended tasks: anomaly description, explanation, and justification; with fine-grained annotations categorizing anomalies based on their visual manifestations, their complexity, severity, and commonness. These annotations draw inspiration from cognitive science research on how humans identify and resolve anomalies, providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in detecting and understanding anomalies. Our results show that state-of-the-art VLMs struggle with visual anomaly perception and commonsense reasoning, even with advanced prompting strategies. By offering a realistic and cognitively grounded benchmark, CAVE serves as a valuable resource for advancing research in anomaly detection and commonsense reasoning in VLMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".