Mitigating Entangled Steering in Large Vision-Language Models for Hallucination Reduction
Organizations: Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Intelligent Networks and Network Security, Xi‘an Jiaotong University, Xi‘an, China · Centre for Frontier AI Research, Institute of High Performance Computing, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
Abstract
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable success across cross-modal tasks but remain hindered by hallucinations, producing textual outputs inconsistent with visual content. Existing methods mitigate hallucinations but often alter generation behavior, resulting in shorter outputs and shifted token distributions, especially in latent space steering approaches. We identify that this issue stems from entangled steering signals, where suppressing hallucinations inadvertently disrupts the model's intrinsic generation behavior. To address this, we propose MESA, an effective plug-and-play framework that performs controlled and selective latent intervention for hallucination mitigation. Specifically, MESA targets hallucination-relevant responses while preserving the model's original token distribution, enabling effective hallucination reduction without compromising generation behavior. Extensive experiments across diverse generative and discriminative benchmarks demonstrate that MESA consistently reduces hallucinations while better preserving generation behavior, outperforming prior methods across multiple LVLM families.
Figures & tables
| Method | LLaVA-v1.5 | Qwen-VL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | Avg. length | Recall | Avg. length | |||||
| Vanilla | 48.80 | 13.40 | 77.70 | 98.70 | 38.70 | 14.30 | 72.70 | 82.40 |
| VCD ( Leng et al., 2024 ) | 56.30 | 16.00 | 77.10 | 99.60 | 37.60 | 13.20 | 64.90 | 71.30 |
| ICD ( Wang et al., 2024 ) | 59.50 | 15.80 | 76.30 | 103.7 | 49.90 | 13.80 | 71.90 | 101.1 |
| VAF ( Yin et al., 2025 ) | 51.10 | 14.00 | 77.90 | 96.60 | 36.90 | 10.60 | 72.50 | 79.50 |
| ICT ( Chen et al., 2025 ) | 51.00 | 14.90 | 76.70 | 101.20 | 38.10 | 11.40 | 74.40 | 85.10 |
| Model | Method | MSCOCO | GQA | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random | Popular | Adversarial | Random | Popular | Adversarial | ||||||||
| Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | Accuracy | F1 | ||
| LLaVA-v1.5 | Vanilla | 85.53 | 88.80 | 83.20 | 84.28 | 75.60 | 78.63 | 84.96 | 86.25 | 73.30 | 77.93 | 67.4 | 74.31 |
| VCD ( Leng et al., 2024 ) | 87.73 | 87.16 | 85.38 | 85.06 | 80.88 | 81.33 | 86.65 | 86.99 | 80.73 | 82.24 | 76.09 | 78.78 | |
| ICD ( Wang et al., 2024 ) | 85.23 | 83.52 | 83.73 | 82.00 | 81.46 | 80.32 | 85.90 | 85.29 | 78.56 | 78.79 | 75.90 | 76.89 | |
| VAF ( Yin et al., 2025 ) | 87.36 | 85.94 | 86.46 | 85.09 | 83.86 | 82.71 | 89.00 | 88.63 | 81.16 | 82.00 | 79.10 | 80.41 | |
| Generative Task | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | CHAIR | Cover | Hallucination | Cognition |
| Vanilla | 10.6 | 50.9 | 36.4 | 4.1 |
| VTI ( Liu et al., 2025 ) | 6.7 | 47.6 | 28.1 | 3.6 |
| Nullu ( Yang et al., 2025 ) | 7.4 | 48.2 | 30.5 | 3.7 |
| MESA | 6.4 | 50.4 | 27.4 | 3.2 |
| Discriminative Task | ||||
| Metric | Vanilla | MESA | VTI ( Liu et al., 2025 ) | MESA | Nullu ( Yang et al., 2025 ) | MESA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | 6.26 | 6.43 | 3.93 | 5.67 | 6.10 | 6.52 |
| Det | 5.80 | 5.81 | 3.53 | 5.61 | 5.67 | 5.77 |
| Training Loss for Perturbation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Recall | Avg. length | ||
| Vanilla | 48.8 | 13.4 | 77.7 | 98.7 |
| w | 41.6 | 11.2 | 75.6 | 93.8 |
| w | 46.4 | 12.2 | 79.3 | 104.4 |
| MESA | 31.0 | 8.6 | 75.8 | 93.5 |
| Different Type of Perturbation | ||||
| Decoding | Method | Recall | Avg. len | Decoding | Method | Recall | Avg. len | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top P | Vanilla | 52.4 | 15.4 | 76.2 | 98.5 | Top P+Temp. | Vanilla | 50.6 | 14.4 | 78.3 | 98.2 |
| MESA | 36.2 | 8.7 | 75.3 | 90.1 | MESA | 39.6 | 10.1 | 75.2 | 88.8 | ||
| Top K | Vanilla | 52.8 | 16.0 | 74.5 | 102.9 | Top P+Temp. | Vanilla | 51.2 | 14.9 | 76.7 | 98.2 |
| MESA | 38.0 | 9.9 | 71.5 | 92.3 | MESA | 39.8 | 9.2 | 74.6 | 89.8 | ||
| Temp. | Vanilla | 50.8 | 15.0 | 77.6 | 99.0 | Greedy | Vanilla | 48.8 | 13.4 | 77.7 | 98.7 |
| MESA | 35.6 | 9.3 | 73.4 | 89.2 | MESA | 31.0 | 8.6 | 75.8 | 93.5 |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| GPT-4o Prompt |
| You are an AI designed to evaluate and score the performance of two AI assistants in describing a given image. Your primary focus is on the accuracy and detailedness of their descriptions. You will assess the accuracy by checking for hallucinations - any part of the description that is inconsistent with the image content. For detailedness, you will consider how rich the response is in necessary details, excluding any hallucinated parts. You will provide scores on a scale from 1 to 10 for each assistant separately, based on these criteria. After scoring, you will offer an explanation for your evaluation, ensuring it is free from bias and not influenced by the order of presentation of the responses. Input format: [Assistant 1] {Response 1} [End of Assistant 1] [Assistant 2] {Response 2} [End of Assistant 2] Output format: Accuracy: Scores of the two answers: Reason: Detailedness: Scores of the two answers: Reason: |
| Setting | Method | LLaVA-v1.5 | Qwen-VL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | ||
| Random | Vanilla | 85.53 | 86.77 | 90.93 | 88.80 | 87.23 | 91.70 | 80.06 | 85.50 |
| VCD | 87.73 (↑2.20) | 91.42 (↑4.65) | 83.28 (↓7.65) | 87.16 (↓1.64) | 88.63 (↑1.40) | 94.64 (↑2.94) | 81.91 (↑1.85) | 87.81 (↑2.31) | |
| ICD | 85.23 (↓0.30) | 94.44 (↑7.67) | 74.86 (↓16.07) | 83.52 (↓5.28) | 82.43 (↓4.80) | 98.80 (↑7.10) | 65.67 (↓14.39) | 78.89 (↓6.61) | |
| VAF | 87.36 (↑1.83) | 96.82 (↑10.05) | 77.26 (↓13.67) | 85.94 (↓2.86) | 86.80 (↓0.43) | 98.50 (↑6.80) | 74.73 (↓5.33) | 84.98 (↓0.52) | |
| ICT | 88.96 (↑3.43) | 96.87 (↑10.10) | 80.40 (↓10.53) | 87.85 (↓0.95) | 88.06 (↑0.83) | 96.90 (↑5.20) | 78.11 (↓1.95) | 86.55 (↑1.05) | |
| Setting | Method | LLaVA-v1.5 | Qwen-VL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | ||
| Random | Vanilla | 85.40 | 80.83 | 91.30 | 85.76 | 87.46 | 91.32 | 82.80 | 86.85 |
| VCD | 86.15 (↑0.75) | 85.18 (↑4.35) | 87.53 (↓3.77) | 86.34 (↑0.58) | 89.22 (↑1.76) | 90.77 (↓0.55) | 87.32 (↑4.52) | 89.01 (↑2.16) | |
| ICD | 86.53 (↑1.13) | 90.59 (↑9.76) | 81.53 (↓9.77) | 85.82 (↑0.06) | 82.80 (↓4.66) | 97.04 (↑5.72) | 67.67 (↓15.13) | 79.73 (↓7.12) | |
| VAF | 88.73 (↑3.33) | 91.91 (↑11.08) | 84.93 (↓6.37) | 88.28 (↑2.52) | 87.06 (↓0.40) | 93.78 (↑2.46) | 80.73 (↓2.07) | 86.76 (↓0.09) | |
| ICT | 88.96 (↑3.56) | 92.88 (↑12.05) | 84.40 (↓6.90) | 88.43 (↑2.67) | 89.36 (↑1.90) | 92.88 (↑1.56) | 85.80 (↑3.00) | 89.20 (↑2.35) | |
| Setting | Method | LLaVA-v1.5 | Qwen-VL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | ||
| Random | Vanilla | 84.96 | 79.44 | 94.33 | 86.25 | 74.76 | 98.43 | 50.33 | 66.60 |
| VCD | 86.65 (↑1.69) | 84.85 (↑5.41) | 89.24 (↓5.09) | 86.99 (↑0.74) | 85.59 (↑10.83) | 86.88 (↓11.55) | 83.84 (↑33.51) | 85.33 (↑18.73) | |
| ICD | 85.90 (↑0.94) | 89.10 (↑9.66) | 81.80 (↓12.53) | 85.29 (↓0.96) | 86.20 (↑11.44) | 95.55 (↓2.88) | 75.93 (↑25.60) | 84.62 (↑18.02) | |
| VAF | 89.00 (↑4.04) | 91.66 (↑12.22) | 85.80 (↓8.53) | 88.63 (↑2.38) | 86.11 (↑11.35) | 96.87 (↓1.56) | 77.53 (↑27.20) | 86.11 (↑19.51) | |
| ICT | 89.26 (↑4.30) | 92.93 (↑13.49) | 85.00 (↓9.33) | 88.78 (↑2.53) | 85.33 (↑10.57) | 95.95 (↓2.48) | 78.13 (↑27.80) | 86.12 (↑19.52) | |
| Method | Generative Task | Discriminative Task | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAIR | Cover | Hallucination | Cognition | Accuracy | Precision | Recall | F1 Score | |
| Vanilla | 10.6 | 50.9 | 36.4 | 4.1 | 71.4 | 81.9 | 73.1 | 77.2 |
| VCD | 8.9 (↓1.70) | 51.8 (↑0.90) | 41.9 (↑5.50) | 4.3 (↑0.20) | 73.9 (↑2.50) | 83.8 (↑1.90) | 75.2 (↑2.10) | 79.3 (↑2.10) |
| ICD | 9.3 (↓1.30) | 50.5 (↓0.40) | 41.3 (↑4.90) | 4.9 (↑0.80) | 74.1 (↑2.70) | 73.2 (↓8.70) | 96.2 (↑23.10) | 83.1 (↑5.90) |
| VAF | 10.9 (↑0.30) | 33.0 (↓17.90) | 28.1 (↓8.30) | 3.7 (↓0.40) | 69.8 (↓1.60) | 94.8 (↑12.90) | 57.6 (↓15.50) | 71.7 (↓5.50) |
| ICT | 7.0 (↓3.60) | 48.0 (↓2.90) | 28.4 (↓8.00) | 3.5 (↓0.60) | 79.5 (↑8.10) | 84.7 (↑2.80) | 84.4 (↑11.30) | 84.5 (↑7.30) |
| Rank | Recall | Avg. length | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 31.0 | 8.6 | 75.8 | 93.5 |
| 2 | 30.8 | 8.6 | 75.8 | 93.4 |
| 3 | 31.6 | 8.7 | 75.8 | 93.5 |
| 4 | 30.1 | 8.2 | 76.2 | 93.4 |
| 5 | 31.2 | 8.5 | 76.1 | 93.7 |
VLM Hallucination
Vision-language model hallucination is the production of claims unsupported by or in conflict with visual evidence.
See all 71 papers