cs.CVOct 6, 2026
SaveA Deterministic Evidence Layer for Vision-Language Autism Screening from Naturalistic Home Video
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA · Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA · Department of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed through specialist observation of a child's social behavior, and access to that expertise is the bottleneck for early identification. Vision-language models (VLMs) describe a child's behavior from video well; the verdict drawn from the description is unstable: at temperature~0, across eight pipeline configurations on one backbone, 16--37% of clips change their predicted label between repeated runs, and the cause lies in the serving stack. We keep the VLM frozen and move the decision out of the model. Under our grounded perception constraints the VLM writes an event table of timestamped, glossary-labeled events that names the eliciting press and logs counter-evidence; a text-only stage age-calibrates the confidence of each row; a deterministic weight-of-evidence scorer sums it into an evidence total and stratifies it into a risk category, so every decision decomposes into named per-feature contributions and can be re-scored from the saved table. On 43 caregiver-recorded, protocol-free home free-play clips of preschool children, the pipeline reaches AUC , 86.0% accuracy, and F 71.8 over three runs. It labels 74.4% of clips correctly in every run (60.5% for the zero-shot baseline) and flags no typically developing clip in every run (9 of 31 at zero-shot). An ablation on the same backbone attributes the gain to the grounded perception constraints read through the deterministic scorer.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The screening pipeline. Stage 1, a VLM that sees the video, writes a timestamped event table under grounded perception constraints; Stage 2, a text-only model given the table and the child’s age, calibrates each row under the never-erase rule; the deterministic scorer sums the calibrated table into an evidence total and stratifies it into a low-, intermediate-, or high-risk category.
Figure 2: Classification performance of the full pipeline of our method. A : ROC curve of the full pipeline, mean over the three runs (bold) and single runs (thin), with its operating point (large marker: mean; small markers: single runs). B : evidence total of every clip under the full pipeline, mean over the three runs (dot) and range (bar). Annotations mark the three ASD clips missed in every run and the two TD clips whose total stops exactly at 1.5 in one run.
| Configuration | Verdict | Acc (%) | Recall (%) | Spec (%) | F 1 (%) |
| Zero-shot baseline | VLM | 69.0 5.4 | 86.1 4.8 | 62.4 6.7 | 60.9 4.8 |
| + Few-shot exemplars | VLM | 66.7 1.3 | 55.6 4.8 | 71.0 0.0 | 48.1 3.2 |
| + Age calibration | VLM | 65.9 2.7 | 91.7 0.0 | 55.9 3.7 | 60.0 1.9 |
| + Two-stage split | LLM | 77.5 3.6 | 41.7 8.3 | 91.4 1.9 | 50.7 9.0 |
| + Grounded perception constraints | LLM | 81.4 2.3 | 47.2 4.8 | 94.6 4.9 | 58.7 1.4 |
| + Deterministic scorer (our full pipeline) | scorer | 86.0 0.0 | 63.9 4.8 | 94.6 1.9 | 71.8 1.6 |
Table 1: Cumulative ablation of the full pipeline on Gemini 3.1 Pro (temperature , three seeds each, mean s.d.; positive class ASD). Each row adds one module to the row above. Verdict names the source of the label: VLM (single call), LLM (the text-only Stage 2), or scorer.
Figure 3: Stable correctness of the three configurations of Section 4.1 . For each configuration, pass@1 and pass 3 as defined in Section 4.4 ; the shaded segment is the share of clips correct in some runs only.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Group | N | Age, mean s.d. (months) | Age range (months) |
| ASD (evaluation) | 12 | 40.9 6.6 | 30–48 |
| TD (evaluation) | 31 | 36.6 6.1 | 26–47 |
| Demonstration clips (2 ASD, 2 TD) | 4 | 35.8 5.2 | 32–43 |
Table A1: Composition of the home-video corpus. Ages are the children’s ages at recording. The four demonstration clips supply the in-context exemplars (Section 3.3 ) and are excluded from every reported metric.
| # | Feature | Domain | sens / spec | Basis | |
| 1 | Unusual / avoidant eye contact | SC | 0.85 / 0.80 | 1.447 | eye-tracking meta-analysis [ 58 ] |
| 2 | Limited facial expressions & social smiling | SC | 0.78 / 0.70 | 0.956 | high-risk sibling study; specificity limited [ 44 ] |
| 3 | Reduced gestures & joint attention | SC | 0.87 / 0.82 | 1.576 | joint-attention discriminability [ 8 ] ; early joint-attention deficits predict 18-month screen risk [ 42 ] |
| 4 | Preference for solitude / limited peer interest | SC | 0.80 / 0.79 | 1.338 | author estimate; multifactorial |
| 5 | Impaired social reciprocity | SC | 0.88 / 0.84 | 1.705 | response-to-name marker studies [ 66 , 41 ] |
| 6 | Lack of imaginative / pretend play | SC | 0.72 / 0.62 | 0.639 | published pair, symbolic play test, ASD vs. language disorder [ 7 ] |
Table A2: Per-feature weights of the deterministic scorer. Sensitivity and specificity are the assumed discriminative strength of the feature when present; in nats; the basis column names the type of evidence consulted for each pair.
| Rule | Selection | TP/FN/TN/FP | Recall | Spec. | Acc. |
| Deployed rule (1.5) | set on an earlier run | 23/13/88/5 | 63.9 | 94.6 | 86.0 |
| High risk only (1.8) | set on an earlier run | 22/14/91/2 | 61.1 | 97.8 | 87.6 |
| Re-selected by leave-one-out | Youden index | 21/15/86/7 | 58.3 | 92.5 | 82.9 |
| maximum F 1 | 21/15/88/5 | 58.3 | 94.6 | 84.5 | |
| recall first, spec. 90% | 22/14/85/8 | 61.1 | 91.4 | 82.9 |
Table A3: Optimism of the fixed decision rule. Confusion counts, recall, specificity, and accuracy (%) are pooled over the 43 clips of the three runs (129 clip-runs). The leave-one-out rows re-select the cap and the cut-off on 42 clips in every fold, under the named criterion, and apply them to the held-out clip.
| Configuration | Verdict | Flip (%) |
| Zero-shot baseline | VLM | 16.3 |
| + Few-shot exemplars | VLM | 18.6 |
| Single call, multi-turn exemplars, no age calibration | VLM | 37.2 |
| + Age calibration | VLM | 23.3 |
| + Two-stage split | LLM | 20.9 |
| Two-stage split, read by the scorer | scorer | 27.9 |
Table A4: Cross-seed flip rates on Gemini 3.1 Pro (three repeated runs at temperature ). Flip is the fraction of the 43 clips whose label differs across the runs; Verdict as in Table 1 .
| Run | Accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | Specificity (%) | F 1 (%) |
| run 1 | 72.1 | 58.3 | 77.4 | 53.8 |
| run 2 | 69.8 | 58.3 | 74.2 | 51.9 |
| run 3 | 76.7 | 75.0 | 77.4 | 64.3 |
| run 4 | 69.8 | 66.7 | 71.0 | 55.2 |
| run 5 | 76.7 | 75.0 | 77.4 | 64.3 |
| mean s.d. | 73.0 3.5 | 66.7 8.3 | 75.5 2.9 | 57.9 6.0 |
Table A5: Run-to-run stability of the single-call baseline (Gemini 2.5 Pro, full prompt, four in-context videos, VLM verdict) over five repeated runs of the identical request at temperature (43 clips; an empty API response counts as an error).
Figure A1: Anatomy of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 prompts. Top: the system prompt of each stage (persona, knowledge, rules, output mandate); the knowledge blocks are the glossary of Table A6 and the norms of Fig. A2 . Bottom: the conversation the model sees, with demonstrations as prior user/assistant turn pairs (four corpus clips with their expert tables for Stage 1; the two hand-written exchanges of Fig. A3 for Stage 2) and the final user turn; the dashed bubble is the stage’s output, and Stage 1’s event table becomes the content of Stage 2’s final turn.
| # | Feature (merged diagnostic items) | Expanded behavioral description | Typical situations / contexts | Representative examples |
| 1 | Unusual / Avoidant Eye Contact (ADOS-2 SA “Unusual Eye Contact”, DSM-5 A2 component) | Limited, fleeting or sidelong gaze; may avoid looking at faces even while interacting. | Feeding, play, greetings, clinical exams. | Infant does not lock eyes during feeding; toddler continues playing when a visitor enters and does not look up despite name being called. |
| 2 | Limited Facial Expressions & Social Smiling | Flat or restricted affect; smiles and emotive expressions are infrequent, delayed, or context-inappropriate. | Peek-a-boo, praise moments, gift giving, celebrations. | Child watches peek-a-boo with neutral face; preschooler receives a gift with minimal facial change. |
| 3 | Reduced Gestures & Joint Attention | Pointing, showing, waving, and nodding are rare; may not coordinate gaze with gesture or follow others’ pointing. | Requesting help, picture-book reading, playground pointing. | Child reaches toward a toy but does not point or look to a caregiver to share the request. |
| 4 | Preference for Solitude / Limited Peer Interest | Appears content playing alone; seldom approaches peers or adults to share enjoyment or comfort. | Day-care free-play, playdates, family gatherings. | Child ignores a peer offering a toy and continues solitary play. |
| 5 | Impaired Social Reciprocity | Reduced back-and-forth interaction; may not respond to name or may show limited verbal turn-taking. | Name-call tests, greetings, Q&A exchanges. | Child does not orient when name is called after multiple attempts. |
| 6 | Lack of Imaginative / Pretend Play | Symbolic play is absent or limited; play remains concrete, repetitive, or focused on object properties. | Doll/kitchen sets, toy-vehicle play, cooperative make-believe. | Child spins toy-car wheels and does not use the car in pretend scenarios. |
Table A6: The 11-item behavioral glossary: feature (with ADOS-2 / DSM-5 mapping where applicable), behavioral description, typical contexts, and an example. It constrains both expert annotation and model prompting.
Figure A2: The age-referenced norms of Stage 2, read from the norms text. For each glossary feature the bar marks the ages at which the named behavior is age-typical, so the row is downgraded to possible with an age note; the light segment is a transition range the norms name; the line under the bar is the condition under which the feature is kept. Dotted lines are the developmental anchors the norms list. Pervasiveness overrides the window at any age.
Figure A3: The two hand-written Stage 2 demonstrations, drawn as the output tables ( A : 30 months; B : 42 months). Yellow cells are the age notes Stage 2 wrote into the Note column; the green outline in A marks the social overture that blocks the pervasive feature #4; the green row in B is the clip-spanning #4 row Stage 2 added after the counter-evidence check found no overture. Feature numbers refer to Table A6 .