MoD-DPO: Towards Mitigating Cross-modal Hallucinations in Omni LLMs using Modality Decoupled Preference Optimization
Organizations: University of Southern California
Abstract
Omni-modal large language models (omni LLMs) have recently achieved strong performance across audiovisual understanding tasks, yet they remain highly susceptible to cross-modal hallucinations arising from spurious correlations and dominant language priors. In this work, we propose Modality-Decoupled Direct Preference Optimization (MoD-DPO), a simple and effective framework for improving modality grounding in omni LLMs. MoD-DPO introduces modality-aware regularization terms that explicitly enforce invariance to corruptions in irrelevant modalities and sensitivity to perturbations in relevant modalities, thereby reducing unintended cross-modal interactions. To further mitigate over-reliance on textual priors, we incorporate a language-prior debiasing penalty that discourages hallucination-prone text-only responses. Extensive experiments across multiple audiovisual hallucination benchmarks demonstrate that MoD-DPO consistently improves perception accuracy and hallucination resistance, outperforming previous preference optimization baselines under similar training budgets. Our findings underscore the importance of modality-faithful alignment and demonstrate a scalable path toward more reliable and resilient multimodal foundation models.
Figures & tables
| Audio-driven Video Hallucination | Video-driven Audio Hallucination | Audiovisual Matching | ||||||||||
| Method | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | F1 | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | F1 |
| VideoLLaMA 2 [ 9 ] | 79.23 | 81.51 | 76.94 | 79.16 | 75.07 | 85.15 | 64.98 | 73.71 | 52.93 | 92.11 | 13.75 | 23.93 |
| VITA-1.5 [ 11 ] | 67.17 | 78.17 | 56.17 | 65.36 | 54.01 | 45.85 | 62.18 | 52.78 | 46.85 | 66.31 | 27.40 | 38.78 |
| OmniVinci [ 48 ] | 61.36 | 57.92 | 64.79 | 61.16 | 58.56 | 84.71 | 32.40 | 46.88 | 54.32 | 87.42 | 21.21 | 34.14 |
| Qwen 3 Omni [ 45 ] | 83.54 | 85.92 | 81.17 | 83.47 | 76.46 | 94.94 | 57.99 | 72.00 | 58.52 | 97.76 | 19.14 | 32.02 |
| Qwen 2.5 Omni [ 44 ] | 84.15 | 76.76 | 91.55 | 83.51 | 77.38 | 94.93 | 59.83 | 73.39 | 54.69 | 9.81 | 99.57 | 17.85 |
| Spurious Inter-modality Correlation | Uni-modality Over-reliance | Overall | ||||||||||||
| VL | AL | VAL | Visual Dom. | Audio Dom. | Lang. Dom. | |||||||||
| Method | pa | hr | pa | hr | pa | hr | pa | hr | pa | hr | pa | hr | pa | hr |
| VideoLLaMA 2 [ 9 ] | 75.0 | 86.0 | 77.5 | 94.0 | 78.0 | 98.0 | 62.0 | 75.5 | 80.0 | 90.0 | 57.5 | 43.0 | 71.7 | 81.1 |
| VITA 1.5 [ 11 ] | 92.5 | 91.5 | 42.5 | 30.5 | 77.7 | 72.9 | 57.0 | 24.4 | 77.4 | 67.7 | 86.0 | 55.5 | 72.2 | 57.1 |
| OmniVinci [ 48 ] | 88.5 | 81.0 | 74.5 | 90.0 | 98.0 | 72.0 | 91.0 | 63.5 | 96.0 | 35.0 | 87.0 | 75.0 | 89.2 | 69.4 |
| Qwen 3 Omni [ 45 ] | 96.5 | 77.5 | 93.0 | 88.0 | 97.5 | 94.0 | 95.5 | 60.0 | 94.5 | 67.0 | 93.0 | 65.0 | 95.0 | 75.3 |
| AVHBench [ 36 ] | CMM [ 26 ] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sens. | Inv. | LPD | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | pa | hr |
| ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 72.07 | 60.50 | 83.65 | 86.4 | 84.6 |
| ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 77.02 | 69.82 | 84.21 | 87.4 | 85.1 |
| ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | 76.04 | 67.18 | 84.89 | 87.0 | 85.4 |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 79.74 | 73.74 | 85.72 | 88.8 | 86.2 |
| ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | 73.88 | 63.18 | 84.58 | 86.9 | 86.3 |
| AVHBench [ 36 ] | CMM [ 26 ] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| / | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | pa | hr | ||
| Rel. Opp. | O | - | 77.03 | 69.14 | 84.91 | 87.0 | 86.1 |
| Rel. Opp. | RN | - | 79.93 | 73.98 | 85.87 | 88.8 | 87.3 |
| Rel. Opp. | RAV | - | 79.03 | 71.87 | 86.18 | 88.4 | 86.3 |
| Rel. Opp. | Diff. | 10 | 72.72 | 62.16 | 83.28 | 86.3 | 84.9 |
| Rel. Opp. | Diff. | 50 | 76.92 | 69.52 | 84.32 | 87.1 | 85.4 |
| AVHBench [ 36 ] | CMM [ 26 ] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV Context | Tasks | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | pa | hr |
| Mat. | A,V | 76.69 | 69.29 | 84.09 | 87.6 | 85.8 |
| Mis. | A,V | 78.24 | 72.18 | 84.29 | 88.2 | 86.1 |
| Mat.+Mis. | A,V | 80.42 | 74.50 | 86.34 | 89.2 | 87.2 |
| Mat.+Mis. | A,V, AV | 80.33 | 74.68 | 85.98 | 89.0 | 87.5 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Audiovisual Input | Prompt | Chosen Response | Rejected Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Audio: “(machine whirring…)” | Is the sewing machine visible in the video? | Yes, the object is visible in the video. The video captures a close-up view of an embroidery machine in action, stitching a logo onto a cap. | No, the object is not visible in the video. We can only hear the sound of a machine operating with some noise. |
| Audio: “(dog panting…)” | Is the chair making sound in the audio? | No, the object is not making a sound in the audio. The audio indicates that the primary sound is panting, likely from a dog, and there is no sound coming from a chair. | Yes, the object is making a sound in the audio. The dog can be seen barking on the noisy chair. |
| AVHBench [ 36 ] | CMM [ 26 ] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Acc. | Pre. | Rec. | pa | hr |
| Qwen 2.5 Omni [ 44 ] | 72.07 | 60.50 | 83.65 | 86.4 | 84.6 |
| + VCD* [ 22 ] | 74.74 | 61.64 | 87.84 | 86.9 | 85.2 |
| + AVCD [ 22 ] | 75.57 | 62.85 | 88.28 | 87.2 | 85.6 |
| + MoD-DPO++ | 80.42 | 74.50 | 86.34 | 89.2 | 87.2 |
| Method | OmniDialog |
|---|---|
| Qwen 2.5 Omni | 83.91 |
| + OmniDPO | 84.18 |
| + MoD-DPO | 83.96 |
| + MoD-DPO++ | 85.86 |
Multimodal Large Language Models
Multimodal large language models combine language models with image, video, audio, and other inputs for grounded understanding and generation.
See all 1,084 papers