ClueTracer: Question-to-Vision Clue Tracing for Training-Free Hallucination Suppression in Multimodal Reasoning
Authors: Gongli Xi, Kun Wang, Zeming Gao, Huahui Yi, Haolang Lu, Qianshan Wei, Ye Tian, Wendong Wang
Organizations: Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, SCU
Large multimodal reasoning models solve challenging visual problems via explicit long-chain inference: they gather visual clues from images and decode clues into textual tokens. Yet this capability also increases hallucinations, where the model generates content that is not supported by the input image or the question. To understand this failure mode, we identify reasoning drift: during clue gathering, the model over-focuses on question-irrelevant entities, diluting focus on task-relevant cues and gradually decoupling the reasoning trace from visual grounding. As a consequence, many inference-time localization or intervention methods developed for non-reasoning models fail to pinpoint the true clues in reasoning settings. Motivated by these insights, we introduce ClueRecall, a metric for assessing visual clue retrieval, and present ClueTracer, a training-free, parameter-free, and architecture-agnostic plugin for hallucination suppression. ClueTracer starts from the question and traces how key clues propagate along the model's reasoning pathway (question → outputs → visual tokens), thereby localizing task-relevant patches while suppressing spurious attention to irrelevant regions. Remarkably, without any additional training, ClueTracer improves all reasoning architectures (including R1-OneVision, Ocean-R1, MM-Eureka, etc.) by 1.21× on reasoning benchmarks
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Example outputs from a reasoning model; hallucinated content is highlighted in red. (b) Reasoning drift in a multimodal reasoning model, where attention during inference is allocated to task-irrelevant regions. (c) An intuitive illustration: by progressively zooming in on task-critical regions, hallucinations (in red) diminish and the answers become correct. (d) Radar-chart comparisons among different reasoning models.
Figure 2: Our Motivations. From Failure Modes to Output-Guided Clue Tracing.
Figure 3: Overview of our method. Top : ClueRecall uses bbox/category annotations from COCO or lightweight detectors, enabling extension to arbitrary datasets. Middle : layer-wise ClueRecall identifies Lmax , the layer with strongest visual clue retrieval. Bottom : ClueTracer traces the question → output → vision pathway to localize task-relevant regions. Best viewed in color.
Model
HallusionBench (Accuracy %)
VMCBench (Accuracy %)
Average Δ Acc
qAcc
fAcc
hAcc
aAcc
Gen.
Reason.
OCR
Math
Doc&Chart
Overall
R1-OneVision
8.57
12.43
31.86
35.43
56.64
45.14
65.39
32.44
52.35
52.99
+22.20%
+ ClueTracer
18.18
30.79
41.16
49.16
76.11
61.81
89.97
51.21
78.88
73.91
Ocean-R1
19.34
27.76
40.00
48.89
77.74
61.69
88.91
46.25
76.58
73.75
+10.60%
+ ClueTracer
30.11
43.35
54.88
63.51
80.31
62.72
96.24
52.00
81.07
77.02
MM-Eureka
23.07
31.50
49.30
58.46
76.31
58.79
90.46
42.44
76.21
72.44
+7.26%
Table 1: Comparison on reasoning-oriented hallucination benchmarks with and without ClueTracer . qAcc, fAcc, hAcc, and aAcc denote, respectively, the accuracy per question pair , per figure , on hard questions , and the overall average . Case studies are provided in Fig. 9 - 12 .
ClueRecall per Layer (%)
POPE (%)
MMVP (%)
Model
0
6
12
18
24
27
w/o CT
w/ CT
w/o CT
w/ CT
R1-OneVision
30.78%
33.68%
43.11%
50.60%
47.28%
44.11%
70.22%
76.97%
23.33%
46.00%
Ocean-R1
31.05%
32.64%
48.56%
53.79%
50.92%
49.23%
86.77%
85.77%
47.33%
50.00%
MM-Eureka
29.30%
30.57%
45.45%
51.06%
51.38%
48.11%
75.00%
81.38%
44.67%
50.00%
ORSTA-R1
31.14%
32.38%
47.55%
51.66%
55.32%
50.56%
71.36%
82.98%
38.00%
53.33%
Table 2: Per-layer ClueRecall (left) and accuracy on POPE / MMVP with and without ClueTracer (right).
Figure 4: Visualization of reduced reasoning drift and traced visual clues. (a) Comparative scatter plot of attention allocation versus output mentions for task-relevant objects. (b) Case studies showing that ClueTracer traces implicit visual clues required by the question, with red boxes highlighting the discovered conditions in the image.
Figure 5: Ablation Study and Comparative Evaluations. Default settings in the experiments are shown in bold . Additional ablations on hyperparameters (e.g., DBSCAN and z-score thresholds) are provided in the Appendix F .
Notation
Description
RM,L
Multimodal reasoning model (MLRM) and its number of Transformer layers
I,q
Input image and textual que
cat,bbox
Category of an entity in I and its bounding box in the image plane
Xc,Xs,Xq,Xv
Complete input, system prompt tokens, query tokens, and visual tokens
Nc,Ns,Nq,Nv
Lengths of Xc , Xs , Xq , and Xv
Xqcat,Xbbox
Query tokens for category cat ; visual tokens within the bounding box bbox
Table 3: Notations used throughout ClueRecall and ClueTracer .
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
min_new_tokens
50
max_new_tokens
1024
do_sample
True
Appendix
Table 9
Model
MMMU
MathVista
MMStar
AI2D
ScienceQA
SEEDBench
MM-Vet
MathVision
TVQA
RWQA
R1 - OneVision
36.30
36.63
40.38
46.70
61.54
54.81
48.12
28.99
48.31
46.79
+ ClueTracer (Ours)
50.49
67.00
55.96
68.06
82.35
72.35
74.29
36.41
73.79
54.62
Ocean - R1
56.28
60.89
58.81
74.94
80.09
73.58
73.85
32.35
69.02
60.09
+ ClueTracer (Ours)
55.42
69.50
62.53
79.68
84.39
80.99
79.44
36.97
79.09
66.67
MM - Eureka
51.20
58.42
56.06
71.07
79.64
72.84
73.38
27.42
68.02
54.59
+ ClueTracer (Ours)
60.58
74.75
63.66
80.41
83.48
77.78
85.61
41.78
80.41
56.42
Appendix
Table 4: Accuracy (%) on selected VMCBench . Including: MMMU, MathVista, MMStar, AI2D, ScienceQA, SEEDBench, MM-Vet, MathVision, TableVQABench (TVQA), RealWorldQA (RWQA). Rows are paired as baseline vs. + ClueTracer for each model.
Model
TextVQA
InfoVQA
DocVQA
OCRVQA
VizWiz
ChartQA
GQA
A - OKVQA
OKVQA
VQAv2
R1 - OneVision
64.72
56.36
58.56
66.06
64.18
56.65
61.86
56.71
63.95
66.44
+ ClueTracer
90.56
77.14
94.44
89.38
84.42
82.11
80.93
80.24
81.98
84.03
Ocean - R1
91.01
71.19
92.00
87.31
86.86
75.92
80.68
81.65
86.67
83.56
+ ClueTracer
97.75
82.16
100.00
96.63
90.91
84.63
88.75
89.41
92.35
88.89
MM - Eureka
88.54
73.73
88.42
91.71
83.09
79.36
82.40
79.06
85.68
83.56
+ ClueTracer
94.83
82.75
96.88
93.26
90.44
88.99
87.04
86.82
93.33
87.96
Appendix
Table 5: Accuracy (%) on the remaining VMCBench datasets: TextVQA, InfoVQA, DocVQA, OCRVQA, VizWiz, ChartQA, GQA, A - OKVQA, OKVQA, VQAv2. Rows are paired as baseline vs. + ClueTracer for each model.
Model
Adversarial
Popular
Random
Average
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
Acc
F1
R1 - OneVision
69.20%
0.6629
70.33%
0.6711
71.12%
0.6769
70.22%
0.6703
+ ClueTracer
80.90%
0.7731
81.60%
0.7825
82.43%
0.7881
81.64%
0.7805
Ocean - R1
85.53%
0.8481
86.80%
0.8592
87.97%
0.8707
86.77%
0.8593
+ ClueTracer
84.43%
0.8271
86.13%
0.8458
86.70%
0.8496
85.76%
0.8408
MM - Eureka
74.17%
0.7107
74.21%
0.7108
76.63%
0.7308
75.00%
0.7174
Appendix
Table 6: POPE : accuracy (%) and F1 by split (Adversarial / Popular / Random / Average).
Figure 6: Left: Accuracy versus output–token length on MMVP across models; Right: attention allocation with and without ClueTracer .
Dataset
Setting
Ocean-R1
ORSTA
MM-Eureka
RWQA
w/o ClueTracer
63.27%
65.23%
60.39%
RWQA
with ClueTracer
70.33%
67.84%
65.49%
3DSRBench
w/o ClueTracer
37.66%
43.44%
56.25%
3DSRBench
with ClueTracer
40.06%
45.14%
59.24%
Appendix
Table 7: Results on RWQA and 3DSRBench with and without ClueTracer .
Figure 7: Case study on clustering methods. Each subfigure has two parts. Left: ClueTracer attention, i.e., a visualization of the attention map, where the ClueTracer -selected visual patches Vk⋆ are outlined with black boxes. Right: clustering results from different methods. Because K - means is sensitive to noise, the resulting crops include large amounts of question-irrelevant content induced by only two noisy points, whereas DBSCAN avoids this issue.
Figure 8: Case study on attention choices. Attention identifies question-relevant tokens and correctly crops the hand, thereby guiding the model to the correct answer. Question to visual denotes cross-attention between the input question and input visual tokens; because the model is not trained for this alignment, the signal is weak. Output to visual directly leverages generation-side attention, which is mainstream in MLLMs; however, in MLRMs, reasoning drift introduces numerous distractors.
Method
0.5
1
1.5
2
3
HallusionBench + MM-Eureka
63.51
65.10
63.51
63.15
61.65
POPE + MM-Eureka
79.86
81.38
80.32
79.13
80.92
POPE + Orsta
83.32
83.67
85.01
83.12
82.91
Appendix
Table 8: Sensitivity of accuracy to τq on HallusionBench and POPE.
Method
0.5
1
1.5
2
3
HallusionBench + MM-Eureka
66.43
65.10
63.86
63.42
63.77
POPE + MM-Eureka
82.32
81.38
79.22
79.62
80.62
POPE + Orsta
84.42
83.67
85.02
83.12
79.02
Appendix
Table 9: Sensitivity of accuracy to τo on HallusionBench and POPE.
Method
0.5
1
1.5
2
3
HallusionBench + MM-Eureka
64.22
65.46
65.10
63.95
63.45
POPE + MM-Eureka
82.92
82.41
81.38
80.92
79.12
POPE + Orsta
81.82
83.22
83.67
85.81
83.22
Appendix
Table 10: Sensitivity of accuracy to τv on HallusionBench and POPE.
Method
1.1
1.9
2.1
2.9
3.1
3.9
HallusionBench + MM-Eureka
63.31
64.57
64.48
65.10
65.20
65.37
POPE + MM-Eureka
78.52
79.62
80.62
81.38
81.32
81.22
POPE + Orsta
84.52
84.62
85.41
83.67
84.52
83.02
Appendix
Table 11: Sensitivity of accuracy to DBSCAN- ϵ on HallusionBench and POPE.
Mode / sequence length
offline/–
1
20
50
128
256
Latency (hours / 1000 items)
0.91
0.97
1.08
1.36
1.62
1.79
Throughput (tokens/s)
39.80
35.52
31.24
27.71
20.91
18.08
Appendix
Table 12: Latency and throughput under different online and offline settings.
Model
0
12
24
30
36
40
42
48
54
63
MM-Eureka-32B
0.3060
0.3377
0.4978
0.5358
0.5781
0.6271
0.5474
0.4854
0.3992
0.3099
Orsta-32B
0.3165
0.3397
0.4922
0.5381
0.5669
0.6350
0.5596
0.4961
0.4059
0.3172
Appendix
Table 13: Layer-wise ClueRecall on 32B models.
model
Arch
0
6
12
17
18
24
31
LLaVA-1.5-7B
LLaVA-1.5
33.81%
38.00%
43.04%
50.59%
48.29%
47.03%
39.02%
LLaVA-Mistral-7B
LLaVA-NeXT
10.37%
23.95%
46.00%
49.04%
49.72%
41.10%
35.95%
Appendix
Table 14: Layer-wise ClueRecall on LLaVA-1.5-7B and LLaVA-Mistral-7B.
Figure 9: Case study (Part One). The visual crops selected by ClueTracer are highlighted with red bounding boxes in the figure.
Figure 10: Case study (Part Two). The visual crops selected by ClueTracer are highlighted with red bounding boxes in the figure.
Figure 11: Failure case study (Part One). The visual crops selected by ClueTracer are highlighted with red and yellow bounding boxes. We observe that, in most cases, ClueTracer crops the correct regions, but it fails to do so in the third example.
Figure 12: Failure case study (Part Two). The visual crops selected by ClueTracer are highlighted with red/yellow boxes. We observe that these failures are driven by object-level semantics: in these examples, the model recognizes semantically similar but incorrect concepts (e.g., glass vs. cup , seat vs. chair ).
Method
Ocean-R1
MM-Eureka
Standard Grad-CAM
0.267
0.274
ClueTracer + Grad-CAM
0.377
0.390
Appendix
Table 15: Compatibility of ClueTracer with Grad-CAM. Incorporating question-relevant reasoning tokens substantially improves visual clue localization over standard final-token attribution.
While multimodal reasoning models (MLRMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities, they remain prone to hallucinations, and effective solutions are still underexplored. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the hallucination cause and propose C3PO, a training-based mitigation framework comprising Chain-of-Thought Compression and Contrastive Preference Optimization. Firstly, we identify that introducing reasoning mechanisms exacerbates models' reliance on language priors while overlooking visual inputs, which can produce CoTs with reduced visual cues but redundant text tokens. To this end, we propose to selectively filter redundant thinking tokens for a more compact and signal-efficient CoT representation that preserves task-relevant information while suppressing noise. In addition, we observe that the quality of the reasoning trace largely determines whether hallucination emerges in subsequent responses. To leverage this insight, we introduce a reasoning-enhanced preference tuning scheme that constructs training pairs using high-quality AI feedback. We further design a multimodal hallucination-inducing mechanism that elicits models' inherent hallucination patterns via carefully crafted inducers, yielding informative negative signals for contrastive correction. We provide theoretical justification for the effectiveness and demonstrate consistent hallucination reduction across diverse MLRMs and benchmarks.
Hao Fang, Jinyu Li, Jiawei Kong +4
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen
Multimodal Large Reasoning Models introduce the reasoning paradigm, demonstrating strong capabilities on complex vision-language tasks. However, they still suffer from severe hallucinations. Existing training-based methods typically mitigate hallucinations through response-level direct preference optimization (DPO), where the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and the final answer are treated as a monolithic output and optimized jointly. We reveal that this formulation performs similarly to answer-only optimization, suggesting that it primarily learns answer-level preference, while leaving CoT-level supervision insufficiently exploited. To address this issue, we explicitly formulate a CoT-oriented preference term and derive Reasoning-Conditioned Direct Preference Optimization (RC-DPO), which models the CoT as a condition for answer generation and contrasts the preference for the same preferred answer under different CoT conditions, promoting answer-supportive reasoning chain alignment. To further improve optimization, we introduce a reasoning-enhanced preference data generation strategy that employs Monte Carlo Tree Search to discover visually grounded and logically consistent CoTs as positive samples, and attention-guided CoT token pruning to construct negative ones. Extensive experiments across various models and benchmarks show that RC-DPO effectively mitigates hallucinations and improves the reliability of the multimodal reasoning process.
Jiawei Kong, Hao Fang, Shunxiang Liao +5
Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen
Large reasoning models (LRMs) generate long reasoning traces before producing final answers. While these traces may contain useful signals for hallucination detection, harnessing them is non-trivial because long trajectories often include noisy steps that obscure the cues relevant to truthfulness assessment. In this paper, we identify two prevalent forms of reasoning noises, i.e., irrelevant steps and repetitive steps, and show that both substantially degrade hallucination detection performance. Existing confidence-based scores and naive embedding-based filtering fail to reliably separate noisy from informative steps. To address this challenge, we propose REDE, a novel learning framework for denoising reasoning traces for hallucination detection. Specifically, REDE leverages final-answer attention as an automatic supervision signal to shape the step-level representation space, yielding refined embeddings in which noisy steps can be reliably identified and filtered. REDE can be readily plugged into diverse hallucination detectors by operating on the filtered reasoning trajectory after removing noisy steps. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks show that REDE consistently improves detection performance over competitive baselines.
Junlin Fang, Do Nguyen-Thanh, Xiaogang Xu +2
College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University · Zhejiang University · Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of Technology Sydney +1