| --- |
| license: apache-2.0 |
| task_categories: |
| - visual-question-answering |
| - image-text-to-text |
| language: |
| - en |
| tags: |
| - multimodal |
| - benchmark |
| - vision-language |
| - mllm |
| - counter-intuitive |
| - commonsense-reasoning |
| - language-bias |
| size_categories: |
| - n<1K |
| pretty_name: 'CAIT: Counter-intuitive Action Image Test' |
| --- |
| |
| # CAIT: Counter-intuitive Action Image Test |
|
|
| CAIT is an evaluation benchmark of 400 high-fidelity synthetic scenes in which the |
| visual evidence deliberately contradicts everyday common sense, for example *"a |
| rabbit is chasing a tiger"*. Each item is a binary forced-choice question between |
| the scene that is actually depicted and the commonsense-consistent scene that is |
| not. Models that lean on language priors instead of looking at the image pick the |
| plausible-sounding option and fail. |
|
|
| The benchmark accompanies the paper *Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language |
| Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes*. Humans reach about 0.95 |
| accuracy on it and leading proprietary models up to about 0.88, while standard |
| open-source instruction-tuned models perform at chance level. |
|
|
| This is an **evaluation-only** benchmark; it is published as a single `test` split |
| and is not intended for training. |
|
|
| ## Loading |
|
|
| ```python |
| from datasets import load_dataset |
| |
| ds = load_dataset("LukeLing/CAIT", split="test") |
| print(ds) |
| print(ds[0]["question"], ds[0]["option_a"], ds[0]["option_b"], ds[0]["answer"]) |
| ds[0]["image"] # a PIL image |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Fields |
|
|
| | Field | Type | Description | |
| | --- | --- | --- | |
| | `image` | image | The scene, resolved by the Hub from `file_name` | |
| | `id` | string | Four-digit item id, e.g. `0001` | |
| | `question` | string | Fixed question stem used for every item during evaluation | |
| | `option_a` | string | First answer option | |
| | `option_b` | string | Second answer option | |
| | `answer` | string | The correct option letter, `A` or `B` | |
| | `answer_text` | string | The text of the correct option, so the label survives any reordering | |
| | `main_category` | string | Interaction-pattern code: `H-H`, `H-A`, `A-A`, `B-S` | |
| | `main_category_name` | string | Readable form: `Human-Human`, `Human-Animal`, `Animal-Animal`, `Bio-StillLife` | |
| | `subcategory` | string | One of the six counter-intuitive types below | |
| | `gt_prompt` | string | The text-to-image prompt the scene was synthesised from | |
|
|
| The `answer` letters are balanced exactly 200 / 200 across the benchmark, so a |
| model that always answers with the same letter scores 0.50. |
|
|
| ### The prompt used in the paper |
|
|
| ``` |
| Which of the following option better describes the image? |
| Option A: {option_a} |
| Option B: {option_b} |
| |
| Important Note: Answer directly with the option letter (A or B) only. |
| ``` |
|
|
| ### About `gt_prompt` |
| |
| Because every scene is synthetic, the prompt that generated it is the most |
| faithful available description of the depicted action. The paper feeds this text |
| to a judge model instead of an image to establish an upper bound of about 0.98 |
| accuracy, which demonstrates that the questions are logically easy once the scene |
| is described correctly, and that failures therefore originate in perception. |
| |
| Note that `gt_prompt` reveals the answer. It is included for reproducibility of |
| that upper-bound experiment and should not be shown to a model under test. |
|
|
| ## Taxonomy |
|
|
| | Interaction pattern | Counter-intuitive type | Items | Share | |
| | --- | --- | --- | --- | |
| | Human-Human (`H-H`) | Role Reversal - Social Power | 88 | 22.00% | |
| | Human-Human (`H-H`) | Role Reversal - Kinship Care | 57 | 14.25% | |
| | Human-Animal (`H-A`) | Animal Dominance over Humans | 89 | 22.25% | |
| | Human-Animal (`H-A`) | Animals Providing Humanlike Care | 56 | 14.00% | |
| | Animal-Animal (`A-A`) | Prey Outsmarts Predator | 72 | 18.00% | |
| | Bio-StillLife (`B-S`) | Objects Act on Beings | 38 | 9.50% | |
| | **Total** | | **400** | **100%** | |
|
|
| ## Position-bias control |
|
|
| The paper also evaluates a variant in which the two options are presented in the |
| opposite order, to separate genuine understanding from a preference for a |
| particular letter. That variant is not shipped as a separate file because it is |
| fully reconstructible: swap `option_a` with `option_b` and flip `answer`. |
|
|
| ```python |
| def swap_options(example): |
| example["option_a"], example["option_b"] = example["option_b"], example["option_a"] |
| example["answer"] = "B" if example["answer"] == "A" else "A" |
| return example |
| |
| swapped = ds.map(swap_options) |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Notes on the images |
|
|
| All 400 files are PNG. 362 are 1024x1024 and the remaining 38 are 512x512. |
| 237 files carry an alpha channel, but it is fully opaque in every one of them, so |
| converting to RGB loses nothing: |
|
|
| ```python |
| ds = ds.map(lambda x: {"image": x["image"].convert("RGB")}) |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| ```bibtex |
| @inproceedings{ling2026seeing, |
| title = {Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source |
| MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes}, |
| author = {Ling, Chen and Zhang, Tongwei and Li, Hanqian and Ding, Nai}, |
| booktitle = {Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural |
| Language Processing (EMNLP)}, |
| year = {2026} |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|