Contextual image misuse pairs an image with a misleading claim. We study image-claim correspondence in fact-checked pairs containing out-of-context reuse, visual manipulation, or both. Existing pair-based detectors often compress the two modalities into a global compatibility score or learn a highly flexible interaction module, which can obscure a decisive local mismatch. We introduce directional multiscale coverage, a compact representation that summarizes local image-claim affinity in both directions and at three spatial scales. At each scale, each direction is summarized by its mean, lower quartile, and two thresholded support ratios; the signed difference between directional means completes a nine-dimensional scale descriptor. Concatenating the three scales yields a compact local representation for a lightweight global-local classifier. Under leakage-aware three-fold, three-seed evaluation on the Snopes subset of the Fauxtography benchmark, UNMATCH achieves 69.82 Macro-F1 and 71.05 balanced accuracy, exceeding the MCOT adaptation by 2.60 and 2.16 points. A matched-reassigned intervention shows that breaking the observed pairing lowers coverage and increases both discrepancy and false-pair probability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of UNMATCH. The framework performs directional multiscale coverage over image–claim pairs using frozen vision–language representations and a lightweight classifier. A five-stage image–claim verification pipeline. A frozen SigLIP encoder produces global embeddings, retained non-padding and non-special text states, and a 14-by-14 patch grid. Claim-to-image and image-to-claim maximum affinities are computed on native, 7-by-7, and 2-by-2 image grids. Four statistics per direction plus a signed mean gap yield nine coordinates per scale and a 27-dimensional descriptor. This descriptor is concatenated with a 3072-dimensional global pair feature and a fixed 512-dimensional zero compatibility block to form the 3611-dimensional input to an MLP with two 128-unit hidden affine layers and a one-unit affine output layer.
Model
Macro-F1 (%)
Bal. Acc. (%)
Text-only
57.89±1.62
60.33±1.49
Cross-attention
64.59±1.42
66.50±1.28
MCOT adaptation
67.22±1.32
68.89±1.25
UNMATCH
69.82±1.47
71.05±1.20
Table 1. Performance on Fauxtography under the shared grouped three-fold, three-seed protocol.
Variant
Macro-F1 (%)
Bal. Acc. (%)
Δ Macro-F1 (pp)
Global-only
67.91±1.39
69.32±1.17
−1.91
Zero-local
65.95±2.05
67.35±1.68
−3.87
Shuffled-local
66.85±1.46
67.99±1.44
−2.97
Global-projection
67.37±1.74
68.58±1.47
−2.45
Full UNMATCH
69.82±1.47
71.05±1.20
0.00
Table 2. Representation controls under the same evaluation protocol.
Diagnostic
Matched
Reassigned
Difference
AUC
False-pair probability
.386±.016
.612±.022
+.226±.018
.811±.014
Coverage
.432±.000
.329±.015
−.103±.015
.789±.019
Discrepancy
.607±.000
.720±.016
+.113±.016
.804±.016
Table 3. Matched–reassigned pairing-sensitivity analysis. Difference is reassigned minus matched; AUC treats reassigned pairs as positive and uses false-pair probability, −C , and D for the three rows, respectively.
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence, UAE · UKP Lab · Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP Lab), Department of Computer Science, TU Darmstadt and National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE, Germany +2