跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.04112 · v1

Co-Occurrence Priors Override Visual Spatial Evidence: Understanding False Alarms in Vision-Language Models for Construction Struck-By Hazard Detection

首次提交 2026-11-03 08:39
版本更新 2026-11-03 08:39
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly support construction hazard monitoring, yet their frequent false alarms remain poorly understood. This study investigates whether false struck-by hazard warnings arise from failures in object recognition, spatial relation encoding, or hazard decisions dominated by learned co-occurrence priors. We evaluated Qwen2.5-VL-7B and InternVL3.5-8B using 355 counterfactual worker-excavator scene pairs with controlled spatial proximity and worker-removal variants, combining behavioral analysis, internal representation probing, causal interventions, and decision correction. Both models recognized the entities and encoded their spatial relations (out-of-fold AUROC: 0.82 and 0.91), assigning higher hazard scores to near than far scenes in 79% and 73% of pairs. Nevertheless, 74% and 100% of far scenes were falsely classified as hazardous. Removing the worker reduced Qwen's hazard rate to 11%, while worker presence exerted 2.4- and 3.2-times greater influence on hazard scores than spatial proximity in the respective models. Attention-head interventions, neuron-level interventions, and activation steering failed to eliminate this co-occurrence bias. However, conditioning hazard decisions on the model's own spatial-relation representation improved Qwen's specificity from 0.36 to 0.58 at matched sensitivity, outperforming threshold recalibration. These findings reveal that VLM struck-by false alarms stem primarily from decision-making failures rather than deficiencies in object recognition or spatial encoding, suggesting that future efforts should prioritize conditioning hazard decisions on encoded spatial evidence rather than further improving visual recognition alone.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 08:39 · 最新观测版本

Co-Occurrence Priors Override Visual Spatial Evidence: Understanding False Alarms in Vision-Language Models for Construction Struck-By Hazard Detection

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly support construction hazard monitoring, yet their frequent false alarms remain poorly understood. This study investigates whether false struck-by hazard warnings arise from failures in object recognition, spatial relation encoding, or hazard decisions dominated by learned co-occurrence priors. We evaluated Qwen2.5-VL-7B and InternVL3.5-8B using 355 counterfactual worker-excavator scene pairs with controlled spatial proximity and worker-removal variants, combining behavioral analysis, internal representation probing, causal interventions, and decision correction. Both models recognized the entities and encoded their spatial relations (out-of-fold AUROC: 0.82 and 0.91), assigning higher hazard scores to near than far scenes in 79% and 73% of pairs. Nevertheless, 74% and 100% of far scenes were falsely classified as hazardous. Removing the worker reduced Qwen's hazard rate to 11%, while worker presence exerted 2.4- and 3.2-times greater influence on hazard scores than spatial proximity in the respective models. Attention-head interventions, neuron-level interventions, and activation steering failed to eliminate this co-occurrence bias. However, conditioning hazard decisions on the model's own spatial-relation representation improved Qwen's specificity from 0.36 to 0.58 at matched sensitivity, outperforming threshold recalibration. These findings reveal that VLM struck-by false alarms stem primarily from decision-making failures rather than deficiencies in object recognition or spatial encoding, suggesting that future efforts should prioritize conditioning hazard decisions on encoded spatial evidence rather than further improving visual recognition alone.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗