The upshot is that a large share of the apparent CAAP--SNAP gap traces back to closed-category annotation limits rather than a real grounding failure, which matters for how the authors detect hallucination, analyze failure modes, and design evaluation for grounded multimodal systems meant to work in the open world.
Abstract
LAOD and similar zero-training LLM+open-vocabulary-detector (OVOD) pipelines score two things separately: class-agnostic localization accuracy (CAAP) and semantic naming accuracy (SNAP). The two consistently diverge, and nobody has asked why. This paper asks why, on the full 5,000-image COCO-Val split (27,273 detections) rather than the small subset the original work evaluated on. Object visual complexity turns out not to be the driver -- small and occluded objects are, if anything, localized better than large ones. Vocabulary novelty is: once the LLM's wording falls outside the detector's native category set, localization accuracy falls from 80.9% to 31.6%. That drop is not spread evenly across unfamiliar phrasing, though. Almost all of it comes from cases where the novel wording actually names a different object than the one COCO annotated (true synonyms still score 89.3%; semantically unrelated"noise"labels score 12.0%). A closer look at a further failure subset tells a similar story: 78-88% of what looks like complete localization failure is really the model correctly finding a real object that COCO's non-exhaustive 80-category scheme simply never labeled, not hallucination. Swap the detector backbone (YOLO-World for Grounding DINO) or the LLM (Gemma-3 for Qwen2.5-VL) and both the effect and its rough size hold up, so this looks like a general property of the pipeline family rather than a quirk of one model pairing. The upshot is that a large share of the apparent CAAP--SNAP gap traces back to closed-category annotation limits rather than a real grounding failure, which matters for how we detect hallucination, analyze failure modes, and design evaluation for grounded multimodal systems meant to work in the open world.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
The new ChartNet training dataset could improve the accuracy of vision-language models that help analyze business trends or interpret scientific figures.