Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their safe deployment in real-world applications. Existing LLM self-evaluation methods rely on a model's ability to estimate the correctness of its own outputs, which can improve deployment reliability; however, they depend heavily on language priors and are therefore ill-suited for evaluating vision-conditioned predictions. We propose VAUQ, a vision-aware uncertainty quantification framework for LVLM self-evaluation that explicitly measures how strongly a model's output depends on visual evidence. VAUQ introduces the Image-Information Score (IS), which captures the reduction in predictive uncertainty attributable to visual input, and an unsupervised core-region masking strategy that amplifies the influence of salient regions. Combining predictive entropy with this core-masked IS yields a training-free scoring function that reliably reflects answer correctness. Comprehensive experiments show that VAUQ consistently outperforms existing self-evaluation methods across multiple datasets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Failure of LLM-based self-evaluation under language prior dominance. Methods include: Entropy (Ent), Verbalized Confidence (Verb), Semantic Entropy (Sem), and EigenScore (Eigen). Performance comparison on the ViLP dataset using LLaVA-1.5-7B, which contains paired factual and counterfactual images associated with the same prompt. Common self-evaluation methods often fail in counterfactual samples.
Figure 2: Overall VAUQ Framework. Given an input image-text pair (v,t) , the LVLM generates a response y . Based on the attention map Attn(vi) , we perform unsupervised core region masking by covering the top- K% image patches, resulting in a core-masked set vmasked . Using this masked input, we compute the core-masked Image-Information Score IScore . Finally, predictive entropy H(y∣v,t) and IScore are combined to produce the VAUQ score sVAUQ for self-evaluation.
LLaVA-1.5-7B
LLaVA-1.5-13B
Method
ViLP
MMVet
VisualCoT
CVBench
ViLP
MMVet
VisualCoT
CVBench
Perplexity
54.6
79.3
56.2
60.3
54.2
81.3
63.7
64.6
Verbalized
56.3
71.7
49.9
57.6
52.4
67.2
54.4
55.4
SVAR
50.6
29.3
44.5
48.7
48.3
34.2
44.5
49.2
Contextual Lens
56.7
70.8
58.3
51.1
60.4
61.4
52.5
58.6
Chain-of-Embeddings
52.0
60.8
55.7
50.6
60.5
44.4
46.5
53.3
Table 1: Main results with LLaVA. Comparison with competitive self-evaluation methods across datasets. All values are AUROC (%). Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Qwen-2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3.5-8B
Method
ViLP
MMVet
VisualCoT
CVBench
ViLP
MMVet
VisualCoT
CVBench
Perplexity
55.0
76.6
56.0
64.8
55.3
67.5
62.3
66.4
Verbalized
55.3
51.9
54.7
56.3
48.7
59.4
54.7
60.1
SVAR
49.6
54.6
46.7
61.6
51.6
49.7
56.7
50.5
Contextual Lens
61.3
65.5
65.0
54.4
51.3
59.6
55.1
48.2
Chain-of-Embeddings
47.4
59.8
44.3
49.7
50.1
52.8
61.4
53.6
Table 2: Main results using QwenVL-2.5-7B and InternVL-3.5-8B. All values are AUROC (%). Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
LLaVA-1.5
QwenVL-2.5
InternVL3.5
w. ISblank
75.2
66.9
75.9
w. ISrand
73.3
65.1
74.0
w. ISGT
78.6
69.2
77.7
w. IScore
77.8
68.0
77.2
Table 3: AUROC (%) of VAUQ score under different masking strategies on the VisualCoT dataset.
Figure 3: Visual attention ratios over evidence and irrelevant regions on the VisualCoT dataset.
Figure 4: Qualitative examples of core region masking using LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Factual
Counterfactual
Method
LLaVA
QwenVL
LLaVA
QwenVL
Entropy
83.2
68.4
48.4
44.5
IScore
60.9
56.5
75.2
63.0
Entropy−αIScore
83.6
68.1
70.4
60.1
Table 4: Component analysis of VAUQ on the ViLP dataset across factual and counterfactual splits.
Figure 5: (a) Effect of the weighting parameter α in Equation 6 ; (b) effect of the proportion of masked image patches K in Equation 4 ; (c) generalization performance across datasets.
LLaVA-1.5-7B
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Method
Time (s)
AUC (%)
Time (s)
AUC (%)
SVAR
0.39
50.6
1.59
49.6
Verbalized
0.58
56.3
1.82
55.3
EigenScore
5.86
63.2
8.77
53.0
Semantic Entropy
7.05
63.7
12.4
52.0
VL-Uncertainty
13.6
55.6
20.2
57.9
Table 5: Average per-sample inference time on the ViLP dataset.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Qualitative example comparing our method with the entropy baseline.
Figure 7: Qualitative case studies of core-region masking using LLaVA-1.5-7B, illustrating (a) correct response, (b) incorrect response, and (c) failure mode.
Method
LLaVA
Qwen
Perplexity
56.4
69.4
Verbalized
49.1
57.9
SVAR
60.2
63.3
Contextual Lens
54.9
58.3
Chain-of-Embeddings
52.1
61.0
Semantic Entropy
64.3
74.0
Appendix
Table 6: Experiment results on HallusionBench.
Method
Pixel Acc. ↑
mIoU ↑
mAP ↑
Embedding (Contextual Lens)
50.4
36.1
53.9
Attention (Ours)
69.3
46.4
77.1
Appendix
Table 7: Localization quality on ImageNet-S.
Category
Embedding
Attention (Ours)
Monkey
47.62
50.79
Hamster
31.36
38.52
Car
36.35
43.46
Iron
41.47
41.89
Pasta
67.52
70.10
Sign
15.35
20.95
Appendix
Table 8: Category-wise IoU on ImageNet-S.
Method
ViLP
VisualCoT
Grad-CAM
76.0
76.6
Attention (Ours)
77.0
77.8
Appendix
Table 9: AUROC comparison of masking strategies on ViLP and VisualCoT.
Method
AUROC (%) ↑
AUPRC (%) ↑
Perplexity
54.6
50.5
Verbalized
56.3
47.8
SVAR
50.6
47.4
Contextual Lens
56.7
52.1
Chain-of-Embeddings
52.0
45.9
EigenScore
63.2
59.7
Appendix
Table 10: AUROC and AUPRC comparison on ViLP with LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Dataset
Hyperparameters
(ls,le)
α
K
ViLP
(10,25)
0.6
60
MMVet
0.6
40
VisualCoT
0.3
60
CVBench
1.2
30
Appendix
Table 11: Hyperparameter setting for LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Dataset
Hyperparameters
(ls,le)
α
K
ViLP
(10,35)
1.5
20
MMVet
0.4
30
VisualCoT
0.2
60
CVBench
1.2
40
Appendix
Table 12: Hyperparameter setting for LLaVA-1.5-13B.
Dataset
Hyperparameters
(ls,le)
α
K
ViLP
(12,26)
0.8
80
MMVet
0.1
60
VisualCoT
0.1
50
CVBench
2.0
60
Appendix
Table 13: Hyperparameter setting for Qwen2.5-VL-7B.
Dataset
Hyperparameters
(ls,le)
α
K
ViLP
(10,25)
0.5
70
MMVet
0.1
50
VisualCoT
0.1
50
CVBench
0.2
60
Appendix
Table 14: Hyperparameter setting for InternVL3.5-8B.
Self-evolving vision-language models train on questions they generate from unlabeled images. Since these questions have no gold answers, prior methods label them by majority vote over sampled answers or by a model judge. In a human evaluation, we find that 24% of majority-vote labels and 18% of model-judge labels produced during self-evolution are wrong. To address this problem, we present Verifiable QA Generation for Self-Evolving Models (VQS), which changes how the model judges answers. Instead of voting on an answer, the model parses each image into a structured record, such as a scene graph, a chart table, or a diagram graph. Fixed programs then write a question from the record and compute its answer. The model still acts as a visual checker, but it only confirms the individual facts the program reads, one short claim at a time. These claim-level checks select the parser's training targets, so the parser also improves without labels. Human raters find 94% of VQS answers correct, against 76% for majority voting. Across ten benchmarks, VQS improves Qwen3-VL by up to 3.18 points at the 2B, 4B, and 8B scales and outperforms the strongest self-evolving baseline at each. Gains keep growing over three training rounds, reaching 3.84 points at 2B. Code is released at https://github.com/ahmedheakl/VQS
Ahmed Heakl, Sungik Choi, Moontae Lee +1
LG AI Research · MBZUAI · University of Illinois at Chicago +1
Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.
Mohammed Safi Ur Rahman Khan, Sanjay Suryanarayanan, Tushar Anand +1
♠Nilekani Centre at AI4Bharat ♢Indian Institute of Technology Madras · ♠Nilekani Centre at AI4Bharat · ♣BITS Pilani, Hyderabad
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) remains a critical challenge in Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) for reliable predictions and real-world deployment. However, most existing methods are adapted from the LLM literature and primarily focus on the language modality, leaving the contribution of visual information to LVLM uncertainty largely underexplored. In this paper, we investigate how LVLMs process visual information and whether this process can be used to improve uncertainty estimation. By analyzing hidden representations after the integration of visual features during the generation process, we observe that high-confidence predictions rely more heavily on visual content than uncertain ones. Building on this insight, we propose Visual-Grounded Token UQ (VIG-TUQ), a training-free framework that explicitly incorporates visual grounding into uncertainty estimation by weighting token-level language uncertainty with visual grounding scores. We evaluate VIG-TUQ on multiple datasets and across diverse LVLM architectures, including early-fusion, late-fusion, and native-fusion models. Results indicate that our method often improves upon existing token-level uncertainty approaches. Code and data will be made available upon acceptance.
Joseph Hoche, David Brellmann, Gianni Franchi
AMIAD, Pôle Recherche, Palaiseau · Safran Tech · ENSTA Paris