It seems to me that the software is occasionally doing better than the supposed “ground truth” (who annotated that?), and I don't understand why the authors are blindly following the latter, and the reviewers apparently approved that.
In Figure 1 the authors complain that Gemini “misreads 'ss ety!' as 'ness ety!'”, but even a casual look at the image reveals that Gemini's reading is correct.
In Figure 11, they state that Claude is “altering the natural sequence of ideas in the ground truth”, except that the sequence in the ground truth makes no sense, while Claude's order does (only the initial “the” is misplaced).
In Figure 1 the authors complain that Gemini “misreads 'ss ety!' as 'ness ety!'”, but even a casual look at the image reveals that Gemini's reading is correct.
In Figure 11, they state that Claude is “altering the natural sequence of ideas in the ground truth”, except that the sequence in the ground truth makes no sense, while Claude's order does (only the initial “the” is misplaced).