Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Navigating Hallucinations for Reasoning of Unintentional Activities

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.19405 v2 pith:5AEZOW34 submitted 2024-02-29 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords reasoningtaskunintentionalpromptingactivitiesdifferentevaluatehallucinations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work we present a novel task of understanding unintentional human activities in videos. We formalize this problem as a reasoning task under zero-shot scenario, where given a video of an unintentional activity we want to know why it transitioned from intentional to unintentional. We first evaluate the effectiveness of current state-of-the-art Large Multimodal Models on this reasoning task and observe that they suffer from hallucination. We further propose a novel prompting technique,termed as Dream of Thoughts (DoT), which allows the model to navigate through hallucinated thoughts to achieve better reasoning. To evaluate the performance on this task, we also introduce three different specialized metrics designed to quantify the models reasoning capability. We perform our experiments on two different datasets, OOPs and UCF-Crimes, and our findings show that DOT prompting technique is able to outperform standard prompting, while minimizing hallucinations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explainability for Vision Foundation Models: A Survey

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A structured review of 122 papers on explainability for vision foundation models, with a taxonomy and the finding that quantitative evaluation is rare (36%).

Pith tools