The paper investigates whether language‑grounded explanations improve trust in automated sheep pain detection from facial expressions. It finds that attention‑based explanations tied to the Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale (SPFES) are largely ineffective, prompting the authors to replace the appearance bypass with a concept bottleneck that uses SPFES concept scores supervised by per‑region annotations. This new architecture slightly reduces performance but yields more semantically meaningful concepts, recovering minority pain states and revealing ear‑and‑eye severity orderings without explicit severity supervision, and highlights the pitfalls of pooled concept accuracy under clinical imbalance.
The paper introduces EmoNet‑Face‑HQ, a fine‑grained emotion recognition benchmark that uses generated portraits and a 40‑category taxonomy to evaluate vision‑language models (VLMs). It finds that VLMs perform poorly when asked to generate responses but can match or surpass a fine‑tuned model (Empathic‑Insight‑Face) when their logits are read directly as binary queries. The study shows that the benchmark’s difficulty lies in the readout process rather than in perception, and that graded probability outputs yield better performance than simple yes/no questions.
By Tobias Hallmen, Fabian Deuser, Robin-Nico Kampa, Norbert Oswald, Elisabeth Andr\'e
The paper introduces EmoNet‑Face‑HQ, a benchmark of 2,500 AI‑generated portraits each evaluated by four psychology experts across 40 emotion categories. It shows that most vision‑language models (VLMs) perform no better than random guessing unless fine‑tuned, but that changing the prompt to a simple yes/no per category can raise a VLM’s agreement with experts from chance to near expert levels. When evaluated using probability‑of‑yes scores on the five most‑agreed‑upon categories, eleven open‑weight VLMs achieve a quadratic‑weighted κ of 0.425, below the 0.468 two‑expert agreement, yet their average probability‑of‑yes score (0.553) matches the benchmark’s fine‑tuned model and outperforms it in three cases without any training.
By Tobias Hallmen, Fabian Deuser, Robin-Nico Kampa, Norbert Oswald, Elisabeth Andr\'e
arXiv:2610.28059v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) promise predictions that humans can inspect and correct through concepts such as "curved beak". Yet on CUB-200-2011,...
By Sascha Saralajew, Eleonora Poeta, Eliana Pastor, Ammar Shaker
CounterCount is a diagnostic dataset that pairs factual and counterfactual images to test whether Vision‑Language Models (VLMs) rely on visual evidence or on world knowledge when counting attributes. Humans achieve near‑perfect accuracy on both types of images, whereas VLMs drop from 91.6% to 49.5% on counterfactuals, often defaulting to canonical counts. The study shows that VLMs exhibit a System‑1‑like bias, underutilize visual evidence, and that targeted input manipulations can mitigate this bias.
By Reem Alzahrani, Bushra Bin Hemid, Hassan Alshanqiti, Zaid Alyafeai, Paul Gavrikov, Bernard Ghanem, Abdelrahman Eldesokey
arXiv:2601. 21944v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The widespread adoption of deep learning models in computer vision has intensified concerns about interpretability.
By Konstantinos P. Panousis, Diego Marcos