The Unreasonable Effectiveness of VLMs for Zero-shot Procedural Mistake Detection

Reliable procedural monitoring in video requires exposure to naturally occurring human errors and the recoveries that follow. In egocentric recordings, mistakes are often partially occluded by hands and revealed through subtle object state changes, while existing procedural datasets provide limited and inconsistent mistake and correction traces. We present PIE-V (Psychologically Inspired Error injection for Videos), a framework for constructing and benchmarking mistake-aware egocentric procedural videos by augmenting clean keystep procedures with controlled, human-plausible deviations. PIE-V combines a psychology-informed error planner conditioned on procedure phase and semantic step load, a correction planner that models recovery behavior, an LLM writer that performs cascade-consistent rewrites, and an LLM judge that validates procedural coherence and repairs failures. For video segment edits, PIE-V synthesizes replacement clips with text-guided video generation and stitches them into the episode to preserve visual plausibility. Applied to 17 tasks and 50 Ego-Exo4D scenarios, PIE-V injects 102 mistakes and generates 27 recovery corrections. For benchmarking, we introduce a unified taxonomy and a human rubric with nine metrics that cover step-level and procedure-level quality, including plausibility, procedure logic with annotator confidence, state change coherence, and grounding between text and video. Using this protocol, we audit several existing resources and compare PIE-V against a freeform LLM generation baseline under the same criteria. Together, the framework and rubric support post-completion verification for egocentric procedural mistake detection and correction.

Verification and validation (V&V) of classification models is crucial to enable a wide range of sensor processing applications. Currently, the V&V process relies on time-consuming manual inspection of erroneous samples to find meaningful patterns. This work explores the use of Vision Language Models (VLMs) to speed up this laborious process. VLMs are trained to embed images into a semantically meaningful vector representation, from which human-interpretable systematic errors can be distilled. Deploying such VLM-based methods in a defence context introduces two major challenges: (1) the defence domain is underrepresented in the training data of VLMs, and (2) surroundings and context are less diverse than for other domains. This study provides an initial assessment of the suitability of VLM-based methods for V&V of defence applications. We propose a VLM-based error slice detection (ESD) method that independently groups and labels systematic errors made by a classification model. We demonstrate that this method is able to identify operationally-relevant artificially added perturbations in a non-military dataset. In a military context, our method clusters and describes images based on their surroundings, but also exhibits overlap between cluster descriptions. We further investigate the difference in embedding variation between our military and non-military dataset, which remains a topic of interest. Although the results do not yet warrant fully automated V&V through VLM-based ESD, they show that VLMs could be used to accelerate V&V processes in the future.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are well known for hallucinating non-existent objects in images. Objects with missing parts present a unique challenge for VLMs, stemming from both real-world knowledge bias and the scarcity of such images in training data. We present MissingBench-Verified, a benchmark designed to evaluate a specific and practically relevant scenario: when vision-language models fail to recognize that an essential component of an object has been removed. Across ten leading models, we observe consistent and significant failure rates that persist even when external tool evidence explicitly contradicts the model's visual perception. We further ask whether granting models access to image processing tools (e.g., cropping, contrast adjustment) enables autonomous inspection to resolve these failures. We find that existing mitigation strategies, including tool-assisted verification, autonomous visual reasoning, longer reasoning durations, and fine-tuning on an easier dataset, provide negligible improvement, indicating that this failure mode cannot be addressed through current prompting or post-hoc correction techniques. Our findings highlight a fundamental limitation of current VLM for inspection and monitoring tasks and underscore the need for architectural or training-level interventions that enable models to override internal expectations when confronted with contradictory evidence.