HaloProbe: Bayesian Detection and Mitigation of Object Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models
Authors: Reihaneh Zohrabi, Hosein Hasani, Akshita Gupta, Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah, Anna Rohrbach, Marcus Rohrbach
Organizations: Multimodal AI Lab, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany · Department of Computer Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Large vision-language models can produce object hallucinations in image descriptions, highlighting the need for effective detection and mitigation strategies. Prior work commonly relies on the model's attention weights on visual tokens as a detection signal. We reveal that coarse-grained attention-based analysis is unreliable due to hidden confounders, specifically token position and object repetition in a description. This leads to Simpson's paradox: the attention trends reverse or disappear when statistics are aggregated. Based on this observation, we introduce HaloProbe, a Bayesian framework that factorizes external description statistics and internal decoding signals to estimate token-level hallucination probabilities. HaloProbe uses balanced training to isolate internal evidence and combines it with a learned prior over external features to recover the true posterior. While intervention-based mitigation methods often degrade utility or fluency by modifying models' internals, we use HaloProbe as an external scoring signal for non-invasive mitigation. Our experiments show that HaloProbe-guided decoding reduces hallucinations more effectively than state-of-the-art intervention-based methods while preserving utility.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of HaloProbe. Given an image and a prompt, an LVLM generates a caption. HaloProbe adopts a Bayesian formulation that combines internal features (e.g., attention and logit statistics) with external caption features (e.g., object repetition and its token position) through a balanced estimator and a prior estimator to produce token-level hallucination scores. HaloProbe enables reliable hallucination detection and downstream hallucination mitigation without modifying model internals.
Figure 2: Illustration of Simpson’s paradox induced by token position. (a) Token-position–conditioned image attention, averaged over heads, layers, and samples, for correct and hallucinated object tokens. Image attention is computed by averaging attention values from layers 5 to 18 of LLaVA-1.5-7B and over 5K samples from the MS COCO dataset. Across most positions, hallucinated tokens receive higher conditional attention than correct tokens. (b) Class-conditional token position distributions, showing that hallucinated tokens tend to appear at later positions than correct tokens. When conditioning is removed by marginalizing over token position using the distributions in (b), the expected attention values (dashed lines in (a)) reverse, with correct object tokens exhibiting higher overall attention.
Figure 3: Distribution of object repetition counts ( r∈{1,2,3,4} ) conditioned on class. Hallucinated objects are typically mentioned only once, while correct objects are more frequently repeated within a caption.
Figure 4: Illustration of Simpson’s paradox induced by object repetition. (a) Token-position-conditioned image attention for correct and hallucinated object tokens, shown separately for first and non-first occurrences. First mentions consistently exhibit higher image attention, even when the object is hallucinated, while non-first mentions attend less to the image. Conditioning on object occurrence largely removes the apparent attention gap between correct and hallucinated tokens. (b) Class-conditional probability of first occurrence as a function of token position, showing that hallucinated objects are more likely to appear as first mentions.
Figure 5: Proportion of correct versus hallucinated objects across token positions in the 5K random samples of MS COCO dataset. The dataset is highly imbalanced, particularly at early token positions.
Method
Acc. ↑
AUROC ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1 ↑
IC
62.56
–
61.93
81.60
70.42
UT
50.57
–
53.60
70.62
60.95
EAZY
78.77
–
78.41
83.38
80.82
DIML
84.46
90.19
–
72.34
–
HaloProbe
90.00
93.50
92.50
95.80
94.10
Table 1: Performance comparison of different object hallucination detection methods on LLaVA-1.5-7B backbone. Missing values are indicated with “–”.
Decoding
Method
LLaVA-1.5
Shikra
MiniGPT-4
Cs↓
Ci↓
F1↑
Cs↓
Ci↓
F1↑
Cs↓
Ci↓
F1↑
Nucleus
Baseline
53.0
15.2
74.2
54.4
16.0
72.3
30.4
10.4
68.7
PAI ( Liu et al., 2024c ) *
42.0
13.1
72.0
50.0
14.6
73.6
28.6
9.7
67.2
HaloProbe + Post-process
15.6
4.2
75.4
13.2
4.3
72.5
10.8
3.7
68.8
Greedy
Baseline
51.6
15.2
75.1
53.0
15.9
72.4
30.6
9.8
69.4
EAZY ( Che et al., 2025 )
38.8
11.4
-
26.6
8.9
-
-
-
-
Table 2: Comparison of mitigation methods across different decoding strategies on three vision-language models. Lower Cs and Ci values and higher F1 scores indicate better performance. The best results are shown in bold , and the second-best results are underlined .“–” indicates unavailable or non-comparable results and ”*” indicates reproduced results.
Decoding
Method
Cs↓
Ci↓
F1↑
Nucleus
Baseline
25.2
8.4
74.4
HaloProbe + Post-process
14.4
4.7
74.5
Greedy
Baseline
24.8
8.0
74.6
HaloProbe + Post-process
12.2
4.3
74.6
Beam
Baseline
25.8
7.9
74.9
HaloProbe + Beam
15.6
4.9
75.2
Table 3: Mitigation results on Qwen3-VL. Lower Cs and Ci values and higher F1 scores indicate better performance.
Decoding
Method
Cs↓
Ci↓
F1↑
Nucleus
Baseline
33.8
9.6
73.8
HaloProbe + Post-process
22.2
6.7
75.1
Greedy
Baseline
31.6
8.7
74.5
HaloProbe + Post-process
16.6
5.1
75.7
Beam
Baseline
34.6
9.5
73.7
HaloProbe + Beam
15.0
5.2
74.0
Table 4: Mitigation results on InternVL3.5. Lower Cs and Ci values and higher F1 scores indicate better performance.
Attn.
Logits
Tok. Pos.
Tok. Rep.
Tok. Occ.
Acc. ↑
AUROC ↑
×
✓
✓
✓
✓
84.4
82.8
✓
×
✓
✓
✓
89.7
92.9
✓
✓
×
✓
✓
88.2
92.0
✓
✓
✓
×
✓
88.8
92.7
✓
✓
✓
✓
×
89.4
92.6
×
×
✓
✓
✓
83.9
81.7
Table 5: Feature ablation study for hallucination detection with HaloProbe. Internal features include attention weights and decoder logit-based signals, while external features include token position, token repetition, and token occurrence. Ablated features are replaced with Gaussian noise.
Train Balanced
Test Balanced
Accuracy ↑
AUROC ↑
×
×
89.8
92.2
✓
×
87.2
92.3
×
✓
72.5
87.6
✓
✓
77.6
87.7
Table 6: Effect of class balancing during training and evaluation for the internal estimator fθ . Training and testing are performed either on the natural (imbalanced) distribution or on a position-based class-balanced distribution.
Fine-grained
External
Bayesian
Beam
PP – Greedy
PP – Nucleus
Average
Attention
Features
Decomposition
Cs↓
Ci↓
Cs↓
Ci↓
Cs↓
Ci↓
Cs↓
Ci↓
×
✓
✓
26.4
7.3
20.0
6.8
19.8
6.9
22.0
7.0
✓
×
✓
29.2
8.3
37.4
10.2
41.8
12
36.1
10.1
✓
✓
×
25.5
7.4
28.8
7.7
23.2
6.2
25.8
7.1
✓
✓
✓
25.2
7.2
17.6
5.2
15.6
4.2
19.4
5.5
Table 7: Ablation of HaloProbe components on the hallucination mitigation task using the LLaVA-1.5 model. We remove fine-grained attention features, external caption features, and the Bayesian decomposition, and evaluate their impact under three mitigation settings: HaloProbe-guided beam search and post-processing (PP) applied to captions generated with greedy and nucleus decoding. Performance is reported using CHAIR metrics, where lower values indicate fewer hallucinated objects.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Balanced Estimator Network
Dimensionality
First occurrence (binary)
1
Repetition count (clipped [1,4] )
1
Mean of top-20 image attentions (current decoding step, all layers × heads)
32×32
Mean of top-20 image attentions (next decoding step, all layers × heads)
Table 8: Input features for the hallucination detection balanced estimator and the prior network. The balanced estimator uses normalized features including attention statistics, logit-based features, and token metadata. The prior network uses only repetition and token position normalized to [0,1] . The reported dimensionality corresponds to the LLaVA-1.5 model, which consists of 32 layers and 32 attention heads.
Condition
Len
Vocab
RE-2
Rep-2
Dist-2
Span
No Intervention
91.48
53.76
0.094
0.165
0.906
3.23
Attention Intervention
96.18
49.48
0.154
0.260
0.846
6.98
Appendix
Table 9: Decoding stability and redundancy metrics for greedy decoding with and without attention intervention. Lower is better for redundancy metrics and repeated span length.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of image description results. Given the same user prompt, the baseline model LLaVA-1.5 produces a coherent description with a low repetition score, while the intervention induces severe repetitive generation, reflected by a high RE-4 score.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of image description results. Given the same user prompt, the baseline model LLaVA-1.5 produces a coherent description with a low repetition score, while the intervention induces severe repetitive generation, reflected by a high RE-4 score.
Figure 8: Averaged image attention for first-occurrence object tokens, averaged over early and late transformer layers. Early (first 10) layers exhibit a rapid decay in image attention as generation progresses, while late (last 10) layers maintain relatively stable attention across token positions. Attention in early layers is largely non-discriminative between correct and hallucinated tokens, whereas in late layers, hallucinated tokens counterintuitively receive higher image attention than correct tokens. Compared with Fig. 4(a) , this result indicates that LVLM layers behave differently and that averaging attention across all layers can obscure meaningful patterns.
Model
Accuracy ↑
AUROC ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1 ↑
LLaVA-1.5
90.0
93.5
92.5
95.8
94.1
Shikra
90.2
91.8
92.9
96.0
94.4
MiniGPT-4
91.0
93.6
93.7
96.1
95.0
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison of HaloProbe across different vision-language models.
Figure 9: Consistent performance of HaloProbe across token positions.
Figure 10: ROC and Precision-Recall curves of HaloProbe for token-level hallucination detection, illustrating performance under class imbalance.
Task
Method
Accuracy ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1 ↑
Relation
Baseline
67.4
83.2
55.2
66.3
HaloProbe
81.2
88.6
80.2
84.2
Attribute
Baseline
75.1
76.0
81.1
78.5
HaloProbe
88.1
87.6
88.8
88.2
Appendix
Table 11: Results on the AMBER benchmark using LLaVA-1.5. Higher values indicate better performance. The best results are shown in bold .
Dataset
Method
Accuracy ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1 ↑
COCO
Baseline
86.8
94.0
78.7
85.7
HaloProbe
90.7
93.0
88.1
90.5
GQA
Baseline
84.8
84.6
85.7
85.1
HaloProbe
89.0
88.1
90.3
89.2
AOKVQA
Baseline
86.2
85.7
87.8
86.6
HaloProbe
90.2
88.9
92.2
90.5
Appendix
Table 12: Results on the POPE benchmark using LLaVA-1.5. Higher values indicate better performance. The best results are shown in bold .
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of image description results using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Baseline model hallucinates objects that are not present in the image, while HaloProbe + Post-Process effectively removes such hallucinations while preserving most of the correctly mentioned objects and maintaining caption fluency. Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of image description results using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Baseline model hallucinates objects that are not present in the image, while HaloProbe + Post-Process effectively removes such hallucinations while preserving most of the correctly mentioned objects and maintaining caption fluency. Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of image description results using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Baseline model hallucinates objects that are not present in the image, while HaloProbe + Post-Process effectively removes such hallucinations while preserving most of the correctly mentioned objects and maintaining caption fluency. Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of image descriptions using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Beam Search baseline hallucinates objects not present in the image. In contrast, HaloProbe + Beam Search selects the beam with the fewest hallucinated words and the highest number of correctly mentioned objects. Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of image descriptions using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Beam Search baseline hallucinates objects not present in the image. In contrast, HaloProbe + Beam Search selects the beam with the fewest hallucinated words and the highest number of correctly mentioned objects Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Figure 16: Qualitative comparison of image descriptions using LLaVA-1.5-7B. The Beam Search baseline hallucinates objects not present in the image. In contrast, HaloProbe + Beam Search selects the beam with the fewest hallucinated words and the highest number of correctly mentioned objects. Green = correct object; red = hallucinated object.
Hallucinations remain a persistent challenge for vision-language models (VLMs), which often describe nonexistent objects or fabricate facts. Existing detection methods typically operate after text generation, making intervention both costly and untimely. We investigate whether hallucination risk can instead be predicted before any token is generated by probing a model's internal representations in a single forward pass. Across a diverse set of vision-language tasks and eight modern VLMs, including Llama-3.2-Vision, Gemma-3, Phi-4-VL, and Qwen2.5-VL, we examine three families of internal representations: (i) visual-only features without multimodal fusion, (ii) vision-token representations within the text decoder, and (iii) query-token representations that integrate visual and textual information before generation. Probes trained on these representations achieve strong hallucination-detection performance without decoding, reaching up to 0.93 AUROC on Gemma-3-12B, Phi-4-VL 5.6B, and Molmo 7B. Late query-token states are the most predictive for most models, while visual or mid-layer features dominate in a few architectures (e.g., ~0.79 AUROC for Qwen2.5-VL-7B using visual-only features). These results demonstrate that (1) hallucination risk is detectable pre-generation, (2) the most informative layer and modality vary across architectures, and (3) lightweight probes have the potential to enable early abstention, selective routing, and adaptive decoding to improve both safety and efficiency.
Sai Akhil Kogilathota, Sripadha Vallabha E G, Luzhe Sun +1
Stony Brook University · Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
When given an image and a text prompt, vision-language models (VLMs) can produce seemingly sophisticated text responses. However, they are also prone to hallucinate objects in their output, which can have detrimental consequences in safety-critical applications. To detect these hallucinations, certain methods interestingly leverage internal signals from the VLM as it generates the text response; potentially, these methods use the same signals that led to a hallucination to detect it. We conduct an in-depth analysis to understand the robustness of these detection methods. First, we show that a naive baseline of a generated word's token position in the VLM text response achieves competitive performance. Further, we reveal how some detection methods rely on token position and use this heuristic as a shortcut. Second, we explore detection methods' sensitivity to language and vision modalities. Our experiments suggest that strong detection performance is often driven by detecting language-based hallucinations, and when methods rely on token position, they tend to be less visually grounded and exhibit reduced robustness when hallucinations occur earlier in a text response. Lastly, we demonstrate that different detection methods can carry complementary signals; when ensembling methods together, adding weaker methods to an ensemble of higher performing ones still offers performance improvements. Altogether, while there may be useful internal VLM signals to detect hallucinations, our investigation reveals important limitations of the current methods that try to leverage them.
Allison Chen, William Yang, Salma Abdel Magid +3
Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved impressive progress in multimodal reasoning, yet they remain prone to object hallucinations, generating descriptions of objects that are not present in the input image. Recent approaches attempt to mitigate hallucinations by suppressing unreliable visual signals in the vision encoder, but many rely on iterative optimization for each input, resulting in substantial inference latency. In this work, we investigate the internal attention dynamics of vision encoders in LVLMs and identify a consistent three-phase structure of visual information processing: diffusion, focus, and rediffusion. Our analysis reveals that hallucination behavior is particularly sensitive to tokens receiving low attention during the focus phase. Motivated by this observation, we propose a lightweight inference-time intervention that selectively suppresses such tokens during the focus phase. The method operates in a training-free manner using statistics from a single forward pass and employs a Determinantal Point Process (DPP) to preserve diverse visual cues while filtering redundant tokens. Extensive experiments across multiple LVLM backbones and decoding strategies demonstrate that the proposed approach consistently reduces hallucination metrics while maintaining competitive caption quality. Moreover, compared to adversarial uncertainty estimation methods, our approach achieves comparable hallucination mitigation with negligible additional inference latency.
Sohyeon Kim, Sang Yeon Yoon, Kyeongbo Kong
Pusan National University · Pukyong National University