Multimedia event extraction aims to jointly identify events and their arguments across multiple modalities, such as text and images, to support more comprehensive event understanding. While recent work reports steady and substantial progress, the reliability and comparability of these results critically depend on consistent and rigorous evaluation. In this work, we present the first systematic analysis of evaluation pitfalls in multimedia event extraction and identify three major sources of issues: inconsistent data processing, inconsistent task assumptions, and overly relaxed evaluation settings. We demonstrate, through a series of controlled experiments under a strict evaluation framework, that minor evaluation choices can cause large performance variations and lead to overestimation of a model’s ability to ground real-world events across modalities. Our findings highlight the need for comparable evaluation standards and encourage a shift toward more rigorous evaluation in multimedia event extraction.

Due to the rapid growth of social media platforms, these tools have become essential for monitoring information during ongoing disaster events. However, extracting valuable insights requires real-time processing of vast amounts of data. A major challenge in existing systems is their exposure to event-related biases, which negatively affects their ability to generalize to emerging events. While recent advancements in debiasing and causal learning offer promising solutions, they remain underexplored in the disaster event domain. In this work, we approach bias mitigation through a causal lens and propose a method to reduce event- and domain-related biases, enhancing generalization to future events. Our approach outperforms multiple baselines by up to +1.9% F1 and significantly improves a PLM-based classifier across three disaster classification tasks.