pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24503 · v1 · pith:WICE6E5Dnew · submitted 2026-05-23 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

FoodMonitor: Benchmarking MLLMs for Explainable Compliance Analysis

Ruihao Xu , Xingming Shui , Jingxuan Niu , Yiqin Wang , Jilin Yu , Haoji Zhang , Yansong Tang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 13:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords FoodMonitormultimodal large language modelscompliance analysisvideo surveillanceviolation detectionexplainable AIbenchmarkcommercial kitchens
0
0 comments X

The pith

A benchmark for kitchen surveillance videos shows state-of-the-art multimodal models reach only 0.360 on explainable compliance analysis.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper creates FoodMonitor to fill the gap left by event-level anomaly datasets, supplying rule-driven annotations that specify which regulation was broken, what behavior occurred, and who was responsible. It supplies 477 clips containing 3,307 annotations split across person-level and environment-level channels, each tied to frame-level boxes. A two-stage matching protocol scores spatial localization separately from semantic rule understanding before combining them into a single C_score. When several current multimodal models are tested, none exceeds 0.360, and errors split cleanly into localization failures and semantics failures. This matters because compliance tools used in governance and safety must supply verifiable, traceable outputs rather than binary alerts.

Core claim

FoodMonitor comprises 477 video clips and 3,307 violation annotations that record the violated rule, the non-compliant action, the responsible party, and bounding boxes at the frame level. The benchmark uses a dual-channel structure for person and environment violations together with a two-stage matching mechanism that isolates spatial localization from semantic understanding; these are aggregated into the composite C_score. Systematic tests of leading multimodal models produce a maximum C_score of 0.360, with the dominant error types being localization-dominated and semantics-dominated failures.

What carries the argument

The two-stage matching mechanism that scores spatial localization and semantic rule understanding separately before combining them into the C_score metric.

If this is right

  • Spatial localization must improve before multimodal models can reliably support compliance tasks.
  • Fine-grained rule understanding remains a separate bottleneck from localization.
  • Two identifiable failure modes supply concrete targets for model development.
  • Explainable compliance systems will require advances in both vision grounding and regulatory semantics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same benchmark structure could be reused for other regulated environments such as construction sites or food-processing lines.
  • Models that reduce one failure mode may still need separate training to reduce the other.
  • Low absolute scores imply that current systems would still require human review for high-stakes decisions.
  • Adding explicit rule-text inputs at inference time might raise C_score without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The dual-channel design, violation annotations, and two-stage matching mechanism accurately reflect the requirements for explainable compliance analysis in real public governance and industrial safety scenarios.

What would settle it

Running the same models on fresh, unlabeled commercial-kitchen footage and checking whether higher C_score on FoodMonitor predicts more accurate human-verified violation explanations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24503 by Haoji Zhang, Jilin Yu, Jingxuan Niu, Ruihao Xu, Xingming Shui, Yansong Tang, Yiqin Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between existing benchmarks and FoodMonitor. Existing video anomaly detection benchmarks produce binary classifications without rule grounding, while kitchen action recognition datasets focus on event-level action labels. FoodMon￾itor introduces rule-driven compliance analysis that takes video and predefined rules as input, producing instance-level, spatially and temporally grounded outputs for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Five-stage annotation pipeline for FoodMonitor. The framework integrates au￾tomated processing using VLMs and LLMs with human verification to ensure compre￾hensive coverage of person-level and environment-level violations. with million-token context windows, demonstrating strong reasoning across im￾ages and videos. Open-source models including Qwen3-VL [2], GLM-4.6V [12], MiMo-VL [33], and InternVL3 [39] h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Case study comparing ground-truth annotations with model predictions. Green boxes indicate true positives, red boxes denote false positives, and blue boxes highlight false negatives. stance Match Rate (IMR < 0.42) and high localization FP ratio (rloc > 0.77), indicating fundamental difficulties in spatial perception and person tracking. Representative models include Gemini-3-Pro, GLM-4.6V, and Qwen3-VL-8B￾… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As AI-powered compliance monitoring becomes increasingly important in public governance and industrial safety, the ability to provide verifiable evidence and traceable accountability signals is essential. However, existing video anomaly detection datasets focus on event-level binary classification, lacking the rule-driven, explainable analysis required for real-world compliance scenarios. We introduce FoodMonitor, a benchmark for explainable compliance analysis in commercial kitchen surveillance. FoodMonitor comprises 477 video clips with 3,307 violation annotations across a dual-channel design covering both person-level and environment-level violations. Each annotation specifies which rule was violated, what non-compliant behavior occurred, and who committed it with frame-level bounding boxes. We establish a unified evaluation protocol with a two-stage matching mechanism that separately assesses spatial localization and semantic understanding, along with a composite metric ($C_{\text{score}}$) that balances environment and person detection performance. Systematic evaluation of several state-of-the-art multimodal large language models reveals that the best-performing model achieves only 0.360 $C_{\text{score}}$, with spatial localization and fine-grained rule understanding emerging as the primary bottlenecks. Our analysis identifies two distinct failure modes: localization-dominated errors and semantics-dominated errors, providing diagnostic insights for future model development.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FoodMonitor, a benchmark for explainable compliance analysis in commercial kitchen surveillance videos. It comprises 477 video clips with 3,307 frame-level violation annotations in a dual-channel design (person-level and environment-level), each specifying the violated rule, non-compliant behavior, and perpetrator with bounding boxes. The authors define a two-stage matching mechanism and composite C_score metric, then evaluate several state-of-the-art MLLMs, reporting that the best model reaches only 0.360 C_score with spatial localization and fine-grained rule understanding as primary bottlenecks.

Significance. If the benchmark is shown to be reliable and representative, the work would provide a useful diagnostic dataset and protocol for assessing MLLM limitations in safety-critical explainable analysis, potentially informing targeted improvements in localization and semantic reasoning for compliance tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the description of benchmark construction and model results provides no details on the annotation process, inter-annotator agreement, or data splits. The central performance claims (best model at 0.360 C_score and identified failure modes) rest directly on the quality and fidelity of these 3,307 annotations, making the omission load-bearing.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the dual-channel videos, violation annotations, and two-stage matching mechanism 'accurately reflect the requirements for explainable compliance analysis needed in real public governance and industrial safety scenarios' is presented without external validation (e.g., expert inter-rater agreement with food-safety inspectors or alignment to official violation codes). If the annotations diverge from operational standards, the reported bottlenecks are benchmark-specific rather than diagnostic of MLLM capability.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the composite metric is denoted C_score without an explicit equation or weighting formula; the full manuscript should include the precise definition of C_score and how it balances environment and person detection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback emphasizing the importance of transparency in benchmark construction and validation. We address each major comment below and outline planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the description of benchmark construction and model results provides no details on the annotation process, inter-annotator agreement, or data splits. The central performance claims (best model at 0.360 C_score and identified failure modes) rest directly on the quality and fidelity of these 3,307 annotations, making the omission load-bearing.

    Authors: The abstract is space-constrained, but the full manuscript details the annotation process (Section 3), including annotator training, dual-channel protocol, inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0.82 for rule identification), and 70/15/15 splits. We will revise the abstract to briefly reference these quality controls and data partitioning to better ground the performance claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the dual-channel videos, violation annotations, and two-stage matching mechanism 'accurately reflect the requirements for explainable compliance analysis needed in real public governance and industrial safety scenarios' is presented without external validation (e.g., expert inter-rater agreement with food-safety inspectors or alignment to official violation codes). If the annotations diverge from operational standards, the reported bottlenecks are benchmark-specific rather than diagnostic of MLLM capability.

    Authors: Violation rules are derived from official food safety regulations, with annotation guidelines developed using domain expertise. We did not conduct a separate formal validation with practicing inspectors. We will revise the paper to cite the specific regulatory sources, add an explicit limitations paragraph on the lack of direct inspector inter-rater validation, and frame the benchmark as a proxy rather than a perfect operational replica. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is an empirical benchmark introduction and model evaluation study. It defines FoodMonitor, its annotations, dual-channel design, two-stage matching, and C_score metric internally, then reports measured performance of external MLLMs against that benchmark. No derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citation chains, or ansatzes appear in the provided text or abstract. The central claim (best model at 0.360 C_score with identified bottlenecks) is a direct empirical measurement, not a reduction to the paper's own inputs by construction. This is the normal non-circular outcome for a new-benchmark evaluation paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Benchmark creation relies on standard assumptions about annotation validity and metric design; no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond conventional ML evaluation practices.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1127 out tokens · 29966 ms · 2026-06-30T13:48:57.243800+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    In: CVPR

    Acsintoae, A., Florescu, A., Georgescu, M.I., Mare, T., Sumedrea, P., Ionescu, R.T., Khan, F.S., Shah, M.: Ubnormal: New benchmark for supervised open-set video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 20111–20121 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report

    Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., et al.: Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report

    Bai, S., Chen, K., Liu, X., Wang, J., Ge, W., Song, S., Dang, K., Wang, P., Wang, S., Tang, J., et al.: Qwen2.5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    ByteDance Seed: Seed2.0 model card: Towards intelligence frontier for real-world complexity (2026),https://seed.bytedance.com/en/blog/seed2- 0- release, official release page

    2026

  5. [5]

    In: ECCV

    Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Fidler, S., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Moltisanti, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., Wray, M.: Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In: ECCV. pp. 753–771 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    IJCV130(1), 33–55 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-021-01531-2

    Damen, D., Doughty, H., Farinella, G.M., Furnari, A., Kazakos, E., Ma, J., Molti- santi, D., Munro, J., Perrett, T., Price, W., Wray, M.: Rescaling egocentric vi- sion: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. IJCV130(1), 33–55 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-021-01531-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11263-021-01531-2 2022

  7. [7]

    In: CVPR

    Feng, J.C., Hong, F.T., Zheng, W.S.: Mist: Multiple instance self-training frame- work for video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 14009–14018 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Molmo and pixmo: Open weights and open data for state-of-the-art vision-language models

    Fu, C., Dai, Y., Luo, Y., Li, L., Ren, S., Zhang, R., Wang, Z., Zhou, C., Shen, Y., Zhang, M., et al.: Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis. In: CVPR. pp. 24108–24118 (2025).https: //doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52734.2025.02245

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02245 2025

  9. [9]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities

    Gemini Team: Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multi- modality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

    Gemini Team, Google: Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context

    Gemini Team, Google: Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.1V-Thinking: Towards Versatile Multimodal Reasoning with Scalable Reinforcement Learning

    GLM-V Team, Hong, W., Yu, W., Gu, X., Wang, G., et al.: Glm-4.5v and glm- 4.1v-thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01006 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2507. 01006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    In: ICCV

    Gong, D., Liu, L., Le, V., Saha, B., Mansour, M.R., Venkatesh, S., Van Den Hen- gel, A.: Memorizing normality to detect anomaly: Memory-augmented deep au- toencoder for unsupervised anomaly detection. In: ICCV. pp. 1705–1714 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    In: CVPR

    Grauman, K., Westbury, A., Byrne, E., et al.: Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In: CVPR. pp. 18995–19012 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    In: CVPR

    Hasan, M., Choi, J., Neumann, J., Roy-Chowdhury, A.K., Davis, L.S.: Learning temporal regularity in video sequences. In: CVPR. pp. 733–742 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    International Organization for Standardization: Iso 22000:2018 food safety man- agement systems – requirements for any organization in the food chain. Tech. rep., ISO (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence

    Kimi Team: Kimi k2.5: Visual agentic intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02276 (2026),https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02276 16 R. Xu, X. Shui, J. Niu et al

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    In: CVPR

    Li, F., Liu, W., Chen, J., Zhang, R., Wang, Y., Zhong, X., Wang, Z.: Anomize: Bet- ter open vocabulary video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 29203–29212 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    In: CVPR

    Li, K., Wang, Y., He, Y., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, Z., Xu, J., Chen, G., Luo, P., Wang, L., Qiao, Y.: Mvbench: A comprehensive multi-modal video understanding benchmark. In: CVPR. pp. 22195–22206 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    In: CVPR

    Lv, H., Yue, Z., Sun, Q., Luo, B., Cui, Z., Zhang, H.: Unbiased multiple instance learning for weakly supervised video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 8022–8031 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    In: NeurIPS (2023)

    Mangalam, K., Akshulakov, R., Malik, J.: Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding. In: NeurIPS (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Journal of Food Protection61(9), 1246–1259 (1998).https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X- 61.9.1246

    National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods: Hazard anal- ysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. Journal of Food Protection61(9), 1246–1259 (1998).https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X- 61.9.1246

    work page doi:10.4315/0362-028x- 1998

  23. [23]

    In: CVPR

    Park, H., Noh, J., Ham, B.: Learning memory-guided normality for anomaly de- tection. In: CVPR. pp. 14372–14381 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    In: WACV

    Ramachandra, B., Jones, M.J.: Street scene: A new dataset and evaluation protocol for video anomaly detection. In: WACV. pp. 2569–2578 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    In: CVPR

    Sener, F., Chatterjee, D., Shelepov, D., He, K., Singhania, D., Wang, R., Yao, A.: Assembly101: A large-scale multi-view video dataset for understanding procedural activities. In: CVPR. pp. 21096–21106 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    In: ACM Int

    Stein, S., McKenna, S.J.: Combining embedded accelerometers with computer vi- sion for recognizing food preparation activities. In: ACM Int. Joint Conf. Pervasive Ubiquitous Comput. pp. 729–738 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    In: CVPR

    Sultani, W., Chen, C., Shah, M.: Real-world anomaly detection in surveillance videos. In: CVPR. pp. 6479–6488 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    In: CVPR

    Tang, Y., Ding, D., Rao, Y., Zheng, Y., Zhang, D., Zhao, L., Lu, J., Zhou, J.: Coin: A large-scale dataset for comprehensive instructional video analysis. In: CVPR. pp. 1207–1216 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    In: ICCV

    Tian, Y., Pang, G., Chen, Y., Singh, R., Verjans, J.W., Carneiro, G.: Weakly- supervised video anomaly detection with robust temporal feature magnitude learn- ing. In: ICCV. pp. 4975–4986 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    In: ECCV

    Wu, P., Liu, J., Shi, Y., Sun, Y., Shao, F., Wu, Z., Yang, Z.: Not only look, but also listen: Learning multimodal violence detection under weak supervision. In: ECCV. pp. 322–339 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    In: CVPR

    Wu, P., Zhou, X., Pang, G., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Wang, P., Zhang, Y.: Open-vocabulary video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 18297–18307 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    In: AAAI

    Wu, P., Zhou, X., Pang, G., Zhou, L., Yan, Q., Wang, P., Zhang, Y.: Vadclip: Adapting vision-language models for weakly supervised video anomaly detection. In: AAAI. vol. 38, pp. 6074–6082 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    MiMo-VL Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03569, 2025

    Xiaomi LLM-Core Team: Mimo-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03569 (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03569

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    In: AAAI

    Yang, M., Han, G., Yan, B., Zhang, W., Qi, J., Lu, H., Wang, D.: Hybrid-sort: Weak cues matter for online multi-object tracking. In: AAAI. vol. 38, pp. 6504– 6512 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Yang, Z., Wang, J., Tang, Y., Chen, K., Zhao, H., Torr, P.H.: Lavt: Language- aware vision transformer for referring image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 18155– 18165 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    In: CVPR

    Yang, Z., Liu, J., Wu, P.: Text prompt with normality guidance for weakly super- vised video anomaly detection. In: CVPR. pp. 18899–18908 (2024) FoodMonitor: Benchmarking MLLMs for Compliance Analysis 17

    2024

  37. [37]

    In: AAAI

    Yu, Z., Xu, D., Yu, J., Yu, T., Zhao, Z., Zhuang, Y., Tao, D.: Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering. In: AAAI. pp. 9127–9134 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Zhipu AI: Glm-4.6v (2025),https://docs.z.ai/guides/vlm/glm-4.6v, official documentation page

    2025

  39. [39]

    InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models

    Zhu, J., et al.: Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025