Attribution Gaps in Zero-Training LLM+OVOD Pipelines: A Fine-Grained Analysis of the CAAP--SNAP Discrepancy

LAOD and similar zero-training LLM+open-vocabulary-detector (OVOD) pipelines score two things separately: class-agnostic localization accuracy (CAAP) and semantic naming accuracy (SNAP). The two consistently diverge, and nobody has asked why. This paper asks why, on the full 5,000-image COCO-Val split (27,273 detections) rather than the small subset the original work evaluated on. Object visual complexity turns out not to be the driver -- small and occluded objects are, if anything, localized better than large ones. Vocabulary novelty is: once the LLM's wording falls outside the detector's native category set, localization accuracy falls from 80.9% to 31.6%. That drop is not spread evenly across unfamiliar phrasing, though. Almost all of it comes from cases where the novel wording actually names a different object than the one COCO annotated (true synonyms still score 89.3%; semantically unrelated "noise" labels score 12.0%). A closer look at a further failure subset tells a similar story: 78-88% of what looks like complete localization failure is really the model correctly finding a real object that COCO's non-exhaustive 80-category scheme simply never labeled, not hallucination. Swap the detector backbone (YOLO-World for Grounding DINO) or the LLM (Gemma-3 for Qwen2.5-VL) and both the effect and its rough size hold up, so this looks like a general property of the pipeline family rather than a quirk of one model pairing. The upshot is that a large share of the apparent CAAP--SNAP gap traces back to closed-category annotation limits rather than a real grounding failure, which matters for how we detect hallucination, analyze failure modes, and design evaluation for grounded multimodal systems meant to work in the open world.