Hallucination-aware intermediate representation edit in large vision-language models
Organizations: School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China.
Abstract
Large Vision-Language Models have demonstrated exceptional performance in multimodal reasoning and complex scene understanding. However, these models still face significant hallucination issues, where outputs contradict visual facts. Recent research on hallucination mitigation has focused on retraining methods and Contrastive Decoding (CD) methods. While both methods perform well, retraining methods require substantial training resources, and CD methods introduce dual inference overhead. These factors hinder their practical applicability. To address the above issue, we propose a framework for dynamically detecting hallucination representations and performing hallucination-eliminating edits on these representations. With minimal additional computational cost, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on existing benchmarks. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, highlighting its efficient and robust hallucination elimination capability and its powerful controllability over hallucinations. Code is available at https://github.com/ASGO-MM/HIRE
Figures & tables
| Method | LLaVA-1.5 ( Liu et al., 2024b ) | InstructBLIP ( Dai et al., 2023 ) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAIR S | CHAIR I | TFLOPs | CHAIR S | CHAIR I | TFLOPs | |
| baseline | 51.3 | 16.8 | 10.23 | 51.0 | 24.2 | 2.77 |
| Max new tokens set to 512 | ||||||
| OPERA ( Huang et al., 2024 ) | 45.2 | 12.7 | - | 47.4 | 12.9 | - |
| SID ( Huo et al., 2024 ) | 44.2 | 12.2 | - | 42.3 | 12.4 | - |
| ICD ( Wang et al., 2024 ) | 47.4 | 13.9 | 20.63 | 46.3 | 15.3 | 5.64 |
| Method | Random | Popular | Adversarial | ALL | TFLOPs | ||||
| Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | Acc. | F1 | ||
| LLaVA-1.5-7B | 83.77 | 81.94 | 82.57 | 80.86 | 79.77 | 78.47 | 82.04 | 80.42 | 8.13 |
| Referenced Results | |||||||||
| +HACL | 88.59 | 88.70 | 87.84 | 87.36 | 86.54 | 85.73 | 87.66 | 87.26 | - |
| +VTI | 89.50 | 88.89 | 87.36 | 86.69 | 82.57 | 82.11 | 86.48 | 85.90 | - |
| Comparable Results | |||||||||
| Model | Setting | Generative | Discriminative | AMBER | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAIR | Cover | Hal | Cog | TFLOPs | Acc. | F1 | TFLOPs | |||
| LLaVA-1.5 | baseline | 8.0 | 44.5 | 31.0 | 2.2 | 9.89 | 67.00 | 71.10 | 8.07 | 81.58 |
| VCD | 6.7 | 46.5 | 27.8 | 2.0 | 19.55 | 67.30 | 71.10 | 16.14 | 82.20 | |
| M3ID | 6.0 | 48.9 | 26.0 | 1.5 | 19.81 | 67.25 | 70.90 | 16.14 | 82.25 | |
| AVISC | 6.3 | 46.6 | 25.6 | 2.0 | 19.45 | 70.70 | 75.45 | 16.14 | 84.60 | |
| Octopus | 4.8 | 49.2 | 23.4 | 1.2 | 20.48 | 76.70 | 82.70 | 16.35 | 88.95 | |
| Semantic encoder | Hallucinatory encoder | Router | TFLOPs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 51.3 | 16.8 | 10.23 | |||
| 2 | ✓ | 37.0 | 12.2 | - | ||
| 3 | ✓ | 48.6 | 13.0 | - | ||
| 4 | ✓ | ✓ | 30.4 | 9.5 | 16.23 | |
| 5 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 30.2 | 9.7 | 11.81 |
| Method | MME | SEED |
|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5 7B | 1751.64 | 64.3 |
| +Ours | 1751.99 | 63.8 |
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Edit layer | CHAIR | CHAIR |
|---|---|---|
| baseline | 51.3 | 16.8 |
| shallow (0 9) | 42.0 | 13.0 |
| middle (10 19) | 36.0 | 10.7 |
| deep (20 29) | 46.8 | 14.1 |
| HIRE (0 31) | 30.2 | 9.7 |
| Router type | CHAIR S | CHAIR I | BLEU | training time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5 | 51.3 | 16.8 | 17.47 | - |
| I (a unified router) | 30.6 | 9.6 | 20.53 | 11h |
| II (layer-specific routers) | 30.4 | 9.6 | 20.65 | 14h |
| III (initial embedding-based decision) | 46.2 | 12.9 | 16.93 | 8h |
| Ours (first layer embedding-based decision) | 30.2 | 9.7 | 20.59 | 8h |
| Method | CHAIR S | CHAIR I |
|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5 | 51.3 | 16.8 |
| Instruction perturbation | 32.4 | 8.7 |
| Visual perturbation | 30.2 | 9.7 |
| Setting | CHAIRs | CHAIRi |
|---|---|---|
| Varying Learning Rate. | ||
| LLaVA-1.5-7B | 51.3 | 16.8 |
| +Ours (1e-3) | 30.2 | 9.7 |
| 5e-4 | 32.4 | 12.1 |
| 5e-5 | 33.4 | 10.2 |
| Varying Scaling Factor . | ||
| Model | CHAIR | AMBER | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAIR s | CHAIR i | CHAIR | Cover. | Cog. | HalRate | |
| Qwen-2.5-VL | 46.2 | 9.6 | 8.8 | 59.9 | 3.4 | 46.6 |
| Qwen-2.5-VL+Ours | 35.6 | 8.1 | 6.5 | 60.3 | 2.1 | 36.8 |
| TinyLLaVA-1.5B | 58.6 | 17.5 | 11.2 | 50.8 | 6.2 | 48.0 |
| TinyLLaVA-1.5B+Ours | 36.6 | 11.7 | 8.6 | 48.7 | 2.6 | 35.6 |
| LLaVA-1.5-13B | 43.8 | 12.3 | 6.3 | 51.2 | 3.1 | 30.9 |
| Dataset | Method | Random | Popular | Adversarial | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | F1 | Acc | F1 | Acc | F1 | Acc | F1 | ||
| A-OKVQA | LLaVA-1.5 | 84.93 | 84.07 | 80.90 | 80.64 | 74.80 | 75.59 | 80.21 | 80.10 |
| +VCD | 85.53 | 85.12 | 81.17 | 81.46 | 75.03 | 76.72 | 80.58 | 81.10 | |
| +M3ID | 85.06 | 84.30 | 80.90 | 80.77 | 74.80 | 76.15 | 80.25 | 80.41 | |
| +AVISC | 87.33 | 86.14 | 85.03 | 84.03 | 79.27 | 79.16 | 83.88 | 83.11 | |
| +Ours | 88.90 | 89.20 | 86.50 | 86.52 | 78.07 | 79.70 | 84.49 | 85.14 | |
| Model | CHAIR S | CHAIR I |
|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5 | 51.3 | 16.8 |
| +Ours (trained on VG_100K) | 30.6 | 10.5 |
| +Ours (trained on MSCOCO) | 30.2 | 9.7 |
| CHAIR S | CHAIR I | |
|---|---|---|
| baseline | 51.3 | 16.8 |
| 1 | 32.0 | 9.9 |
| 2 | 30.0 | 9.3 |
| 3 | 31.6 | 9.6 |
| 4 | 28.4 | 9.1 |
| 5 | 30.4 | 9.1 |
VLM Hallucination Mitigation
Vision-language model hallucination mitigation keeps generated claims grounded in visual evidence.
See all 228 papers