Accurately detecting and localizing hallucinations is a critical task for ensuring high reliability of image captions. In the era of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), captions have evolved from brief sentences into comprehensive narratives, often spanning hundreds of words. This shift exponentially increases the challenge: models must now pinpoint specific erroneous spans or words within extensive contexts, rather than merely flag response-level inconsistencies. However, existing benchmarks lack the fine granularity and domain diversity required to evaluate this capability. To bridge this gap, we introduce DetailVerifyBench, a rigorous benchmark comprising 1,000 high-quality images across five distinct domains. With an average caption length of over 200 words and dense, token-level annotations of multiple hallucination types, it stands as the most challenging benchmark for precise hallucination localization in the field of long image captioning to date. Our benchmark is available at https://zyx-hhnkh.github.io/DetailVerifyBench/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The difference between the task of hallucination detection and hallucination localization.
Benchmark
Gran.
#Samp.
Avg. Len.
#Type
#Dom.
Real.
Syn.
HaELM ( Wang et al., 2023 )
Resp.
5,000
∼ 50 w
2
1
✓
ALOHa ( Petryk et al., 2024 )
Span.
490
∼ 14 w
1
1
✓
M-HalDet ( Gunjal et al., 2024 )
Seg.
4,000
∼ 80 w
3
1
✓
HalLoc ( Park et al., 2025 )
Token
155,953
∼ 50 w
3
1
✓
TLDR ( Fu et al., 2025 )
Token
–
–
–
1
✓
HLVC ( Nakada et al., 2025 )
Span
1,167
∼ 60 w
3
1
✓
Table 1. Comparison with existing hallucination localization benchmarks. “-” means undisclosed. Gran.: annotation granularity; Real.: contains real hallucinations; Syn.: contains synthesized hallucinations.
Table 2. Information of each domain in our benchmark. Hallu. Rate: The ratio of captions contain hallucination.
Figure 2. The pipeline for building the DetailVerifyBench.
Model
Real Overall
Real Dimension- Rtok
Synthetic Overall
Synthetic Dimension- Rtok
Ptok
Rtok
F1tok
Num
Clr
Cat
Shp
Mat
Spat
OCR
Other
Ptok
Rtok
F1tok
Num
Clr
Cat
Shp
Mat
Spat
OCR
Scene
Cam
Other
Open-source MLLMs
GLM-4.6V-Flash
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.41
0.22
0.26
0.17
0.40
0.27
0.17
0.40
0.06
0.34
0.31
0.00
0.22
Step3-VL-10B
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.04
0.15
0.04
0.36
0.48
0.35
0.49
0.66
0.48
0.43
0.53
0.37
0.77
0.68
0.04
0.39
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.03
0.45
0.47
0.39
0.45
0.68
0.52
0.41
0.63
0.25
0.76
0.64
0.05
0.49
Qwen3.5-9B
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.16
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.28
0.05
0.24
0.11
0.66
0.60
0.58
0.49
0.74
0.58
0.48
0.61
0.50
0.86
0.61
0.22
0.63
Table 3. Evaluation results of advanced open-source and closed-source MLLMs on real and synthetic hallucinations. Dimension abbreviations: Num (Number), Clr (Color), Cat (Category), Shp (Shape), Mat (Material), Spat (Spatial), OCR (Optical Character Recognition), Scene (Scene), Cam (Camera). The best results are in bold type.
Figure 3. Distribution of 10 hallucination dimensions across five domains for (a) real and (b) synthetic hallucinations. Each cell shows the count (top) and percentage within the domain (bottom). The rightmost column indicates the total count per dimension. Color intensity reflects the within-domain percentage.
Figure 4. (a) Comparison of injection methods; (b) Hallucination counts & Rtok of different adversarial iteration K .
Figure 5. Visualization of a GUI image example with real hallucinations in our dataset. Tiny areas were enlarged and the judgments were annotated beside. The red bold text is the ground truth localization annotation. [ ] with specific color indicates the localization result of each MLLM. For more visualization examples, please visit our website.
Model
Metric
Iteration Round K
0
1
2
3
GPT-5.2
Ptok
0.60
0.48 (-0.12)
0.46 (-0.14)
0.46 (-0.14)
Rtok
0.75
0.64 (-0.11)
0.53 (-0.22)
0.52 (-0.23)
Ftok
0.63
0.48 (-0.15)
0.43 (-0.20)
0.43 (-0.20)
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Ptok
0.53
0.45 (-0.08)
0.45 (-0.08)
0.44 (-0.09)
Rtok
0.71
0.56 (-0.15)
0.47 (-0.24)
0.47 (-0.24)
Table 4. Adversarial injection quality across iteration rounds. We report the token-level precision ( Ptok ), recall ( Rtok ), and F1 score ( Ftok ) for different models (GPT-5.2 and Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking), measured at each iteration round K . Lower values indicate harder hallucinations.
Hallucination detection in captions (HalDec) assesses a vision-language model's ability to correctly align image content with text by identifying errors in captions that misrepresent the image. Beyond evaluation, effective hallucination detection is also essential for curating high-quality image-caption pairs used to train VLMs. However, the generalizability of VLMs as hallucination detectors across different captioning models and hallucination types remains unclear due to the lack of a comprehensive benchmark. In this work, we introduce HalDec-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate hallucination detectors in a principled and interpretable manner. HalDec-Bench contains captions generated by diverse VLMs together with human annotations indicating the presence of hallucinations, detailed hallucination-type categories, and segment-level labels. The benchmark provides tasks with a wide range of difficulty levels and reveals performance differences across models that are not visible in existing multimodal reasoning or alignment benchmarks. Our analysis further uncovers two key findings. First, detectors tend to recognize sentences appearing at the beginning of a response as correct, regardless of their actual correctness. Second, our experiments suggest that dataset noise can be substantially reduced by using strong VLMs as filters while employing recent VLMs as caption generators. Our project page is available at https://dahlian00.github.io/HalDec-Bench-Page/.
Kuniaki Saito, Risa Shinoda, Shohei Tanaka +3
OMRON SINICX · The University of Tokyo · The University of Osaka
Detailed image captioning is usually framed as an amount problem: a model should mention more visual facts while avoiding hallucination. However, autoregressive VLMs generate captions as ordered sequences, and later generations may be produced under weaker or noisier visual grounding. We therefore argue that long-form captioning should be studied not only by what facts are mentioned, but also by where they appear. We introduce a position-aware rubric representation that decomposes dense human references into atomic visual claims, verifies generated captions against those claims, and induces a quartile-wise composition of supported, hallucinated, and generic content. This lens reveals two qualitatively different failures in long captions: models tend to produce unsupported specificity in the middle, while the final portion often escapes into vague, non-evidential language rather than simply accumulating more hallucination. A same-reference human control does not exhibit these patterns; additional human audits examine the visual validity of the induced labels. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose PAGER (Position-Aware Grounded Evidence Reinforcement), a GRPO training objective with separate signals for supported fine-grained middle evidence, evidence-bearing tail continuation, claim coverage, and content-aware length control. The result is a closed loop: the same ordered claim representation identifies where long captions fail and supplies the position-specific reward needed to repair those failures. Experiments on detailed-caption benchmarks show that PAGER improves position-wise grounding and pairwise caption preference while preserving competitive global caption quality.
Yuanze Hu, Zhichao Yang, Junwei Jing +9
Beihang University · Kuaishou Technology · Fudan University +1
Evaluating detailed image captions from Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires going beyond surface-level semantic similarity. Reference-based metrics (e.g., CIDEr and SPICE) and LLM-as-scorer protocols struggle to verify dense factual claims, while existing QA-based alternatives generally offer lower probe density, narrower domain coverage, or no explicit alignment between individual questions and segmented image regions. We introduce CapProbe, a full-scene dense QA benchmark that turns detailed caption evaluation into region-aligned factual checking. Each image is decomposed into coarse semantic regions covering both foreground and background elements; for every retained region, we generate multiple-choice questions spanning 10 semantic categories, forming a dense checklist of probed visual facts. Guided by a two-tier taxonomy of 37 L1 domains and 219 L2 sub-domains, CapProbe comprises 346 images, 1,868 regions, and 25,650 questions, averaging 74 QA pairs per image. A language judge answers from the caption alone; an Uncertain option and Effective Accuracy provide a judge-dependent proxy for distinguishing unanswered probes from incorrectly resolved ones, while density-based metrics penalize verbose yet uninformative captions. The protocol is cost-effective: by converting unconstrained scalar scoring into structured MCQ reading, it reduces open-ended scoring bias while remaining judge-conditioned and yields relatively stable model rankings under a fixed reader. Experiments on 13 VLMs show large Coverage gaps across models, a clear competency-efficiency trade-off, and failure modes that sparse or overlap-based evaluation often misses. The benchmark data, annotations, and evaluation code will be released soon.