Organizations: Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Novel Security Intelligence Technologies, Institute of Cyberspace Security, School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China
Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on many benchmarks, yet a basic reliability question remains underexplored: when visual evidence conflicts with commonsense, do models follow what is shown or what commonsense suggests? A characteristic failure in this setting is that the model overrides visual evidence and outputs the commonsense alternative. We term this phenomenon commonsense-driven hallucination (CDH). To evaluate it, we introduce CDH-Bench, a benchmark designed to create explicit visual evidence--commonsense conflicts. CDH-Bench covers three dimensions: counting anomalies, relational anomalies, and attribute anomalies. We evaluate frontier VLMs under binary Question Answering (QA) and multiple-choice QA, and report metrics including Counterfactual Accuracy (CF-Acc), Commonsense Accuracy (CS-Acc), Counterfactual Accuracy Drop (CFAD), Commonsense Collapse Rate (CCR), and Relative Prior Dependency (RPD). Results show that even strong models remain vulnerable to prior-driven normalization under visual evidence--commonsense conflict. CDH-Bench provides a controlled diagnostic of visual fidelity under visual evidence--commonsense conflict.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Taxonomy and distribution of CDH-Bench.
Figure 2: CDH-Bench illustration: examples from diverse dimensions. Each subfigure displays a counterfactual (CF) image on the left and its commonsense (CS) counterpart on the right, together with the associated binary QA and multi-choice QA evaluation details.
Figure 3: Model performance comparison on counterfactual accuracy (CF-Acc) across different subcategories in the binary QA task.
Figure 4: Counterfactual Accuracy Drop (CFAD) across subcategories in the binary QA task.
Figure 5: Model performance comparison on counterfactual accuracy (CF-Acc) across different subcategories in the multiple-choice QA task.
Figure 6: Counterfactual Accuracy Drop (CFAD) across subcategories in the multiple-choice QA task.
Model
Cat.
Binary QA
Multiple-choice QA
CF ↑
CS ↑
CFAD ↓
RPD ↓
CF ↑
CS ↑
CFAD ↓
CCR ↓
RPD ↓
gemini-3.1-pro-preview
Overall
90.33%
87.67%
-2.67%
-3.04%
81.67%
89.00%
7.33%
58.18%
8.24%
Attr.
85.00%
83.00%
-2.00%
-2.41%
84.00%
93.00%
9.00%
81.25%
9.68%
Count.
96.00%
87.00%
-9.00%
-10.34%
79.00%
80.00%
1.00%
42.86%
1.25%
Rel.
90.00%
93.00%
3.00%
3.23%
82.00%
94.00%
12.00%
55.56%
12.77%
gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview
Overall
83.67%
91.33%
7.67%
8.39%
71.67%
94.33%
22.67%
71.76%
24.03%
Table 1: Main results on CDH-Bench. Higher CF-Acc and CS-Acc are better; lower CFAD , CCR , and RPD are better. To emphasize failure analysis rather than leaderboard ranking, selected notably weak results are marked in red. CCR is reported only for Multiple-choice QA in the main table. All values are percentages. Gray rows denote Overall results.
Model
Binary QA
Multiple-choice QA
Overall
CF (%)
CS (%)
CFAD (%)
RPD (%)
CF (%)
CS (%)
CFAD (%)
CCR (%)
RPD (%)
CF (%)
CS (%)
CFAD (%)
CCR (%)
RPD (%)
Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
40.33
87.67
47.33
53.99
32.00
74.00
42.00
73.53
56.76
36.17
80.83
44.67
86.76
55.37
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
52.00
91.67
39.67
43.27
34.33
89.33
55.00
84.77
61.57
43.17
90.50
47.33
92.39
52.42
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
45.00
93.67
48.67
51.96
42.00
93.67
51.67
78.74
55.16
43.50
93.67
50.17
89.37
53.56
Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
55.67
93.33
37.67
40.36
46.00
92.67
46.67
84.57
50.36
50.83
93.00
42.17
92.28
45.36
Qwen3-VL-2B-Thinking
58.00
91.33
33.33
36.50
48.33
93.00
44.67
77.42
48.03
53.17
92.17
39.00
88.31
42.26
Table 2: Results of the Qwen3-VL series on CDH-Bench. All values are reported as percentages. Higher CF-Acc and CS-Acc are better; lower CFAD, CCR, and RPD are better. We do not highlight best values; instead, selected notably weak results are marked in red.
Figure 7: Model size vs. performance metrics for the MC task on CDH-Bench. The plot shows the scaling behavior of CF-Acc, CFAD, and CS-Acc for Qwen3-VL Instruct and Thinking models.
Figure 8: Model size vs. performance metrics for the QA task on CDH-Bench. The plot shows the scaling behavior of CF-Acc, CFAD, and CS-Acc for Qwen3-VL Instruct and Thinking models.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Images for Pair 5. The anomaly is an extra finger on the right hand (personś perspective).
In vision--language models, commonsense-driven hallucination (CDH) occurs when a model's commonsense prior overrides clear visual evidence of an atypical state. For example, a model may report that a visibly six-fingered hand has five fingers. We show that these errors are systematically directed: when a model answers a question about a counterfactual (CF) image incorrectly, its answer often coincides with the candidate it prefers without access to the image. Suppressing this prior indiscriminately can repair CF errors, but may also disrupt correct answers on matched commonsense (CS) images, where the same prior is helpful. We therefore propose Selective Prior Calibration (SPC), which subtracts candidate-level prior-preference estimates from image-conditioned scores with an instance-dependent strength and revises the original prediction only when the resulting score pattern strongly supports an alternative. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SPC substantially improves accuracy on CF images while largely preserving accuracy on matched CS images. Furthermore, these gains generalize across CDH categories, candidate-answer permutations, and other conflict benchmarks, while SPC rarely alters predictions on benchmarks without such conflicts.
Kesheng Chen, Yamin Hu, Wenjian Luo
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Novel Security Intelligence Technologies Institute of Cyberspace Security School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China
Object level hallucination remains a central reliability challenge for vision language models (VLMs), particularly in binary object existence verification. Existing benchmarks emphasize aggregate accuracy but rarely disentangle whether errors stem from perceptual limitations or from the influence of contextual textual priors, leaving underlying failure mechanisms ambiguous. We introduce DO-Bench, a controlled diagnostic benchmark that isolates these sources through structured multimodal interventions. Rather than evaluating models in unconstrained settings, DO-Bench probes two complementary dimensions: the Prior Override dimension progressively strengthens contextual textual priors while holding visual evidence constant to assess resistance to prior pressure, and the Perception-Limited dimension incrementally enhances visual evidence from full-scene context to localized object crops to measure perceptual grounding strength. This paired design enables attribution of errors to prior suppression, perceptual insufficiency, or their interaction. We further define two diagnostic metrics, PriorRobust and PerceptionAbility, to quantify these behaviors consistently. Evaluations across diverse open- and closed-source VLMs reveal systematic differences in prior sensitivity and perceptual reliability, demonstrating that object hallucination reflects heterogeneous, mechanism dependent failure patterns beyond aggregate accuracy.
JiYang Wang, Jiawei Chen, Mengqi Xiao +3
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multidimensional Information Processing, East China Normal University · Zhongguancun Academy
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can produce Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) that sound plausible yet remain inconsistent with the visual evidence they cite. We present Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing (EDCT), an intervention-based protocol that extracts visual concepts cited in a model's explanation, applies verified minimal edits to them, and tests whether the resulting answer and explanation remain consistent with the edited image. Using this protocol, we create EDCT-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark spanning three complementary domains: knowledge-intensive visual question answering (OK-VQA), safety-critical driving (DriveLM), and 3D spatial reasoning (3DSRBench). Across the evaluated VLMs, EDCT reveals substantial faithfulness gaps, with models frequently producing responses inconsistent with verified visual changes. Finally, our fine-tuning study suggests that EDCT-generated counterfactuals provide high-impact training signals.
Sihao Ding, Santosh Vasa, Aditi Ramadwar +1
Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America