pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26923 · v1 · pith:AKPT4QRHnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 💻 cs.CL

GAVEL: Grounded Caption Error Verification and Localization

Zixian Gao , Atsushi Hashimoto , Kuniaki Saito This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 04:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords vision-language modelscaption error verificationerror localizationgroundinghallucinationbenchmark dataset
0
0 comments X

The pith

GAVEL introduces a task requiring vision-language models to verify caption errors, explain the mismatch, and localize visual evidence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines GAVEL as a combined task of checking whether an image caption aligns with the image content, describing the discrepancy if one exists, and pointing to the relevant image regions. It supplies a human-annotated dataset and benchmark to measure these skills together. Experiments find that leading closed-source models perform poorly across the requirements, yet a model trained directly on the annotated split records steady gains on the grounding and explanation measures.

Core claim

GAVEL is a task that jointly addresses verification, explanation, and localization for image-text pairs, and the corresponding dataset supplies supervision that improves performance on these abilities where strong zero-shot models fall short.

What carries the argument

The GAVEL task that requires simultaneous verification of caption-image misalignment, explanation of the discrepancy, and localization of visual evidence.

If this is right

  • Supervised training on the GAVEL data produces consistent gains on grounding and explanation metrics.
  • Strong closed-source vision-language models still struggle when required to perform verification, explanation, and localization together.
  • The dataset supports systematic measurement of the three abilities at once rather than in isolation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Larger collections of similar annotations could allow scaling the supervised approach beyond the current training split.
  • Better results on GAVEL may reduce the rate of ungrounded statements in downstream caption-generation applications.

Load-bearing premise

The human annotations in the training split correctly identify caption errors and their visual locations without systematic bias or noise that would change the supervised results.

What would settle it

An evaluation in which the supervised baseline shows no measurable gain over strong closed-source models on the held-out test set for grounding or explanation metrics would falsify the claim that the dataset supplies useful learnable supervision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26923 by Atsushi Hashimoto, Kuniaki Saito, Zixian Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the proposed GAVEL task. Given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of hallucination type distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GAVEL qualitative examples for hallucination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of predicted-to-ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of bounding box areas in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of dataset construction pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Additional qualitative examples from GAVEL comparing Qwen-VL and GPT-5 with ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional qualitative examples from GAVEL comparing Qwen-VL and GPT-5 with ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Additional qualitative examples from GAVEL comparing Qwen-VL and GPT-5 with ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Additional qualitative examples from GAVEL comparing Qwen-VL and GPT-5 with ground-truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce hallucinated or inconsistent outputs, where text and images are not properly aligned. Addressing this issue requires not only detecting misalignment but also explaining the discrepancy and localizing its visual evidence. We introduce GAVEL (Grounded Caption Error Verification and Localization), a task that jointly addresses verification, explanation, and localization for image-text pairs. To support systematic evaluation, we also present a corresponding dataset and benchmark. We further train a supervised baseline on the human-annotated training split to assess whether GAVEL provides learnable supervision for these abilities. Experiments show that even strong closed-source models struggle on GAVEL, while the supervised baseline yields consistent improvements across grounding and explanation metrics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GAVEL, a task requiring joint verification of caption errors, generation of explanations, and localization of visual evidence in image-text pairs produced by VLMs. It contributes a human-annotated dataset and benchmark, then trains a supervised baseline on the training split and reports that closed-source models struggle while the baseline shows consistent gains on grounding and explanation metrics.

Significance. If the human annotations prove reliable, GAVEL would supply a much-needed benchmark that moves beyond binary hallucination detection to require explicit grounding and explanation, directly supporting development of more trustworthy VLMs. The empirical result that even strong models underperform a supervised baseline would be a useful existence proof that the task supplies learnable signal.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dataset construction] Dataset construction section: no inter-annotator agreement, adjudication protocol, or noise analysis is reported for the error-type labels or bounding-box localizations. Because the supervised baseline's reported gains rest entirely on these human annotations being accurate, the absence of reliability statistics makes it impossible to rule out that improvements reflect fitting to annotation artifacts rather than genuine visual-textual misalignment structure.
  2. [Experiments] Experiments section: the comparison between the supervised baseline and closed-source models does not specify the exact prompting format, number of few-shot examples, or output parsing procedure used for the closed-source models. Without these details it is unclear whether the reported performance gap is intrinsic to the models or an artifact of evaluation setup.
  3. [Benchmark metrics] Benchmark metrics section: the definitions of the grounding and explanation metrics are not accompanied by any human validation or correlation study showing that automatic scores align with human judgments of localization accuracy or explanation quality. This weakens the claim that the baseline yields 'consistent improvements' on these abilities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the supervised baseline 'yields consistent improvements across grounding and explanation metrics' but does not quantify the magnitude or statistical significance of those gains; a table of per-metric deltas with confidence intervals would strengthen the claim.
  2. [Task definition] Notation for error types and localization formats is introduced without an explicit legend or example in the main text; readers must consult the appendix to understand the label space.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dataset construction] Dataset construction section: no inter-annotator agreement, adjudication protocol, or noise analysis is reported for the error-type labels or bounding-box localizations. Because the supervised baseline's reported gains rest entirely on these human annotations being accurate, the absence of reliability statistics makes it impossible to rule out that improvements reflect fitting to annotation artifacts rather than genuine visual-textual misalignment structure.

    Authors: We agree that annotation reliability details are important. We will expand the dataset construction section to describe the full annotation protocol, including how error types were assigned and how bounding-box localizations were collected, along with any available noise analysis. Inter-annotator agreement was not computed at annotation time, so those specific statistics cannot be reported; we will explicitly note this limitation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section: the comparison between the supervised baseline and closed-source models does not specify the exact prompting format, number of few-shot examples, or output parsing procedure used for the closed-source models. Without these details it is unclear whether the reported performance gap is intrinsic to the models or an artifact of evaluation setup.

    Authors: We agree these details are required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will include the exact prompting templates, the number of few-shot examples used, and the output parsing procedure for the closed-source models. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Benchmark metrics] Benchmark metrics section: the definitions of the grounding and explanation metrics are not accompanied by any human validation or correlation study showing that automatic scores align with human judgments of localization accuracy or explanation quality. This weakens the claim that the baseline yields 'consistent improvements' on these abilities.

    Authors: We will revise the benchmark metrics section to provide fuller formal definitions of the grounding and explanation metrics. While a dedicated human correlation study lies outside the current scope, we will add qualitative examples in the appendix that illustrate how the automatic scores track with human judgments of localization and explanation quality. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Inter-annotator agreement statistics for error-type labels and bounding-box annotations, as these were not collected during dataset creation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark proposal with no derivations

full rationale

The paper introduces a new task (GAVEL), a dataset, and benchmark evaluations of VLMs plus a standard supervised baseline. No equations, parameters, or derivation chains exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. The supervised baseline is ordinary training on human annotations and does not constitute a 'prediction' that is forced by fitting. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked. This is a self-contained empirical contribution whose central claims rest on external model performance and annotation quality rather than internal definitional loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central contribution rests on the creation of a human-annotated dataset and the definition of the GAVEL task; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or new physical entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5644 in / 966 out tokens · 34631 ms · 2026-06-26T04:41:36.925623+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 21 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dense and aligned captions (dac) promote compositional reasoning in vl models , author=

  2. [2]

    Teaching structured vision & language concepts to vision & language models , author=

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12281 , year=

    Scaling Verification Can Be More Effective than Scaling Policy Learning for Vision-Language-Action Alignment , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12281 , year=

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Alfred: A benchmark for interpreting grounded instructions for everyday tasks , author=

  5. [5]

    Emerging Properties in Unified Multimodal Pretraining

    Emerging properties in unified multimodal pretraining , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14683 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation with mask-adapted clip , author=

  7. [7]

    Grounded language-image pre-training , author=

  8. [8]

    Visionllm: Large language model is also an open-ended decoder for vision-centric tasks , author=

  9. [9]

    Open-vocabulary Object Detection via Vision and Language Knowledge Distillation

    Open-vocabulary object detection via vision and language knowledge distillation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.13921 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Flickr30k entities: Collecting region-to-phrase correspondences for richer image-to-sentence models , author=

  11. [11]

    Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) , pages=

    Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes , author=. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) , pages=

    2014

  12. [12]

    2026 , eprint=

    HalDec-Bench: Benchmarking Hallucination Detector in Image Captioning , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  13. [13]

    OpenAI GPT-5 System Card

    Openai gpt-5 system card , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19531 , year=

    Is Your Text-to-Image Model Robust to Caption Noise? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19531 , year=

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Alip: Adaptive language-image pre-training with synthetic caption , author=

  16. [16]

    Synthesize diagnose and optimize: Towards fine-grained vision-language understanding , author=

  17. [17]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report

    Qwen3-vl technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    FirstName Alpher , title =

  19. [19]

    Journal of Foo , volume = 13, number = 1, pages =

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe , title =. Journal of Foo , volume = 13, number = 1, pages =

  20. [20]

    Journal of Foo , volume = 14, number = 1, pages =

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe and FirstName Gamow , title =. Journal of Foo , volume = 14, number = 1, pages =

  21. [21]

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Gamow , title =

  22. [22]

    Computer Vision -- ECCV 2022 , year =

    2022

  23. [23]

    Evaluating text-to-visual generation with image-to-text generation , author=

  24. [24]

    What you see is what you read? improving text-image alignment evaluation , author=

  25. [25]

    2022 , publisher=

    Learning to prompt for vision-language models , author=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  26. [26]

    Clip2scene: Towards label-efficient 3d scene understanding by clip , author=

  27. [27]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of CLIP features for image captioning: an experimental analysis , author=

  28. [28]

    Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality , author=

  29. [29]

    Hugging Face , author=

  30. [30]

    Sugarcrepe: Fixing hackable benchmarks for vision-language compositionality , author=

  31. [31]

    Teaching clip to count to ten , author=

  32. [32]

    Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling

    Expanding performance boundaries of open-source multimodal models with model, data, and test-time scaling , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    COLM , year=

    Fine-grained hallucination detection and editing for language models , author=. COLM , year=

  34. [34]

    Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models , author=

  35. [35]

    LLM-Blender: Ensembling Large Language Models with Pairwise Ranking and Generative Fusion , author=. 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    EMNLP , year=

    An empirical study of translation hypothesis ensembling with large language models , author=. EMNLP , year=

  37. [37]

    Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations , author=

  38. [38]

    Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large , author=

  39. [39]

    2014 , _organization=

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context , author=. 2014 , _organization=

    2014

  40. [40]

    Conceptual 12m: Pushing web-scale image-text pre-training to recognize long-tail visual concepts , author=

  41. [41]

    Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer , author=

  42. [42]

    ACL , year=

    ALOHa: A new measure for hallucination in captioning models , author=. ACL , year=

  43. [43]

    Cambrian-1: A fully open, vision-centric exploration of multimodal llms , author=

  44. [44]

    MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts

    Mathvista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02255 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models , author=

  46. [46]

    MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models

    MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13394 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Hallusionbench: an advanced diagnostic suite for entangled language hallucination and visual illusion in large vision-language models , author=

  48. [48]

    Eyes wide shut? exploring the visual shortcomings of multimodal llms , author=

  49. [49]

    Phi-4-Mini Technical Report: Compact yet Powerful Multimodal Language Models via Mixture-of-LoRAs

    Phi-4-mini technical report: Compact yet powerful multimodal language models via mixture-of-loras , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01743 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Mmmu: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert agi , author=

  51. [51]

    ACL , year=

    Mmmu-pro: A more robust multi-discipline multimodal understanding benchmark , author=. ACL , year=

  52. [52]

    Gemma 3 Technical Report

    Gemma 3 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Pixtral 12B

    Pixtral 12B , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07073 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    The Llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal AI innovation , author=

  55. [55]

    LLaVA-NeXT: Stronger LLMs Supercharge Multimodal Capabilities in the Wild , url=

    Li, Bo and Zhang, Kaichen and Zhang, Hao and Guo, Dong and Zhang, Renrui and Li, Feng and Zhang, Yuanhan and Liu, Ziwei and Li, Chunyuan , _month=. LLaVA-NeXT: Stronger LLMs Supercharge Multimodal Capabilities in the Wild , url=

  56. [56]

    How Far Are We to GPT-4V? Closing the Gap to Commercial Multimodal Models with Open-Source Suites

    How Far Are We to GPT-4V? Closing the Gap to Commercial Multimodal Models with Open-Source Suites , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16821 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    2024 , journal=

    DeepSeek-VL2: Mixture-of-Experts Vision-Language Models for Advanced Multimodal Understanding , author=. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  58. [58]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models , author=

  59. [59]

    EMNLP , year=

    Clair: Evaluating image captions with large language models , author=. EMNLP , year=

  60. [60]

    Gemini 3 Pro , author=

  61. [61]

    Gemini 2.0 Flash , author=

  62. [62]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  63. [63]

    Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

    Qwen2. 5-vl technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  64. [64]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16656 , year=

    A picture is worth a thousand words: Principled recaptioning improves image generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16656 , year=

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training , author=

  66. [66]

    When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it? , author=

  67. [67]

    Tripletclip: Improving compositional reasoning of clip via synthetic vision-language negatives , author=

  68. [68]

    Align before fuse: Vision and language representation learning with momentum distillation , author=

  69. [69]

    2021 , _organization=

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision , author=. 2021 , _organization=

    2021

  70. [70]

    2023 , url=

    Improving Image Generation with Better Captions , author=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  71. [71]

    2022 , organization=

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation , author=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  72. [72]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , year=

    Let there be a clock on the beach: Reducing object hallucination in image captioning , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , year=

  73. [73]

    Qwen2 Technical Report

    Qwen2 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10671 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models , author=. Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

  75. [75]

    2023 , journal=

    Mistral 7B , author=. 2023 , journal=

    2023

  76. [76]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    The llama 3 herd of models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  77. [77]

    Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  78. [78]

    2023 , organization=

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models , author=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  79. [79]

    MiniGPT-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning

    Minigpt-v2: large language model as a unified interface for vision-language multi-task learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09478 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning , author=

Showing first 80 references.