OVERCLOCK.news
ai

Vroom-Vroom at SHROOM-Visions: A Multi-Judge Committee for Detecting Hallucinated Spans in Vision-Language Outputs

-cross Abstract: This paper describes our submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task on detecting and classifying hallucinated character spans in…

BlueskyXRedditMail
Revised 1 change recorded since we first saw this
Arxiv 2 versions
  1. Current Summary changed

    1 new sentence, beginning: “-cross Abstract: This paper describes our submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task on detecting and classifying…”

    Vroom-Vroom at SHROOM-Visions: A Multi-Judge Committee for Detecting Hallucinated Spans in Vision-Language Outputs

    -cross Abstract: This paper describes our submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task on detecting and classifying hallucinated character spans in vision-language model outputs across four languages. We employ several fine-tuned vision-language models as independent annotators and combine their span predictions through character-level majority voting, and additionally explore activation probes. The approach ranks first in three of four languages and places on the podium in every language and metric. Our analysis indicates that disagreement among diverse models tracks disagreement among human annotators.

  2. As first published

    Vroom-Vroom at SHROOM-Visions: A Multi-Judge Committee for Detecting Hallucinated Spans in Vision-Language Outputs

    This paper describes our submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task on detecting and classifying hallucinated character spans in vision-language model outputs across four languages. We employ several fine-tuned vision-language models as independent annotators and combine their span predictions through character-level majority voting, and additionally explore activation probes. The approach ranks first in three of four languages and places on the podium in every language and metric. Our analysis indicates that disagreement among diverse models tracks disagreement among human annotators.

Read the current version at Arxiv →

Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.

Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv

It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.

It clears the bar without leading strongly on any one factor. A middling score is not a claim that the story is important — only that nothing about it is weak.

Link-outLink-out, because it scores 0.40, below the 0.50 bar for a write-up. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.

Blended score 0.402 — every figure below is computed, none of it is editorial.
FactorWeightScore ContributionWhere it came from
Corroboration 0.35 0.39 +0.135 34% 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true.
Source trustleads 0.25 0.85 +0.212 53% arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged.
Pickup rate 0.20 0.00 +0.000 0% One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate.
Freshness 0.20 0.27 +0.054 14% Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent.

Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.

Read the full article at Arxiv →

What happened

-cross Abstract: This paper describes our submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task on detecting and classifying hallucinated character spans in vision-language model outputs across four languages. We employ several fine-tuned vision-language models as independent annotators and combine their span predictions through character-level majority voting, and additionally explore activation probes. The approach ranks first in three of four languages and places on the podium in every language and metric. Our analysis indicates that disagreement among diverse models tracks disagreement among human annotators.

1independent orgs
40story score
0velocity
85source trust
19passes seen

How this story arrived

Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.

  1. 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen Vroom-Vroom at SHROOM-Visions: A Multi-Judge Committee for Detecting Hallucinated Spans in V

Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.