Reliable image captioning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires captions to be both precise and complete, avoiding unsupported object mentions while covering visible objects. Existing training-free methods primarily address the former requirement, suppressing unsupported object words by intervening on model-predicted mentions during generation. Because they operate only on objects the model is already likely to mention, visible objects omitted from the output remain difficult to recover. We propose PatchGate, a training-free framework that extracts prompt-free object evidence intrinsic to a frozen VLM before generation and uses it to narrow the gap between an intrinsic object set and final object mentions. In the first stage, Visual Evidence eXtraction (VEX) reads patch-level lexical evidence from the latter half of LM decoder layers and constructs an image-conditioned object set without any task prompt. In the second stage, Visual-Evidence Inclusion-Exclusion Decoding (VIED) uses this object evidence to calibrate decoding logits, promoting evidence-supported but under-verbalized objects and suppressing weakly supported but over-verbalized objects. On AMBER, PatchGate improves both sides of object-level reliability, increasing visible-object coverage from 49.4 to 56.0 (+13.4%) and reducing object hallucination by lowering CHAIR from 7.5 to 6.6 (-12.0%), without external detectors or fine-tuning and with one extra forward pass.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two complementary captioning failures and PatchGate’s simultaneous mitigation. Reliable captions should be precise and complete, yet generated captions can mention unsupported objects (red: people , truck ) while omitting visible objects (blue: sky , flag ). PatchGate uses prompt-free internal object evidence to calibrate decoding, suppressing unsupported mentions and recovering omitted visible objects (yellow: sky , flag ).
Properties
[CVPR’24] OPERA
[CVPR’24] VCD
[ICLR’25] ProjectAway
[ICML’25] MARINE
[ICLR’26] SHIELD
[CVPR’26] PND
[ICML’26] ILVAD
PatchGate (Ours)
(a) Reduces object hallucinations for precision
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
(b) Reduces object omissions for completeness
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✓
(c) Reads internal patch-level object evidence
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
(d) Builds a prompt-free object set before generation
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
(e) Corrects visual evidence-mention mismatch
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
(f) Requires no external visual module ( e.g. , tagger)
Figure 2: Overview of PatchGate. (a) VEX reads patch-level lexical evidence from the later LM decoder layers, scores each object candidate by its strongest normalized patch evidence, and selects a prompt-free object set T(I) with an adaptive largest-gap cutoff. (b) VIED calibrates decoding logits with T(I) : inclusion promotes evidence-supported but under-verbalized objects, while exclusion suppresses over-committed object words with weak visual evidence.
Method
Generative Task (Captioning)
Discriminative Task (QA)
Cover ↑
CHAIR ↓
Hal ↓
Cog ↓
Acc. ↑
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
[CVPR’24] LLaVA-v1.5-7B
49.4
7.5
31.4
3.6
72.0
92.5
62.9
74.9
+ [CVPR’24] OPERA
48.8 (-0.6)
6.6 (-0.9)
28.3
2.9
76.4
92.7 (+0.2)
69.9 (+7.0)
79.7
+ [CVPR’24] VCD
51.7 (+2.3)
8.9 (+1.4)
39.7
4.4
71.1
91.4 (-1.1)
62.2 (-0.7)
74.0
+ [CVPR’25] Devils-in-Mid.
50.3 (+0.9)
3.3 (-4.2)
20.0
1.2
50.5
94.5 (+2.0)
26.8 (-36.1)
41.8
+ [ICML’25] MARINE
49.9 (+0.5)
6.0 (-1.5)
27.3
2.9
72.4
94.8 (+2.3)
61.7 (-1.2)
74.7
Table 2: Performance comparison on AMBER generative and discriminative tasks [ 28 ] . For Cover, CHAIR, Precision (P.), and Recall (R.), colored values show absolute changes from the LLaVA-v1.5-7B baseline [ 20 ] (green: improvement, red: degradation). The best results are in bold .
Figure 3: Qualitative results on AMBER [ 28 ] and POPE [ 18 ] . PatchGate recovers omitted visible objects and enables correct predictions (green), while suppressing unsupported object mentions and incorrect answers (red).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure A: End-to-end PatchGate inference for open-ended captioning. VEX (Sec. 3.1 ) selects the largest-gap cutoff at θTTD=0.57 , producing an internal object inventory that retains supported objects ( bed , lamp , chair , and table ) while excluding unsupported objects ( cup and couch ). During VIED (Sec. 3.2 ), EDE reduces the cup logit from 6.8 to 4.3 , whereas ESI increases the omitted lamp logit from 16.1 to 17.2 , causing it to be generated.
Figure B: End-to-end PatchGate inference for binary QA. PatchGate constructs the object inventory T(I) , in which ship is absent due to its negligible visual support ( PCS≈0.00 ). While the unconditioned LLaVA-v1.5-7B logits yield a hallucinated “Yes” answer, inventory-conditioned guidance raises the “No” logit above “Yes”, yielding the correct answer “No”.
Figure C: Limitations of Hal and Cog. Although the sun is visibly present, AMBER annotates it as absent and includes it in the image-specific hallucinatory target set. PatchGate correctly recovers sun , but this mention is penalized by both Hal and Cog.
Method
Generative Task
Discriminative Task
Cover ↑
CHAIR ↓
Hal ↓
Cog ↓
Acc. ↑
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
[CVPR’24] LLaVA-v1.5-7B
[CVPR’24] LLaVA-v1.5-7B
49.4
7.5
31.4
3.6
72.0
92.5
62.9
74.9
+ [CVPR’24] OPERA
48.8 (-0.6)
6.6 (-0.9)
28.3
2.9
76.4
92.7 (+0.2)
69.9 (+7.0)
79.7
+ [CVPR’24] VCD
51.7 (+2.3)
8.9 (+1.4)
39.7
4.4
71.1
91.4 (-1.1)
62.2 (-0.7)
74.0
+ [CVPR’25] Devils-in-Mid.
50.3 (+0.9)
3.3 (-4.2)
20.0
1.2
50.5
94.5 (+2.0)
26.8 (-36.1)
41.8
Appendix
Table C: Full AMBER results [ 28 ] across different VLM backbones. We include all training-free baselines evaluated on each backbone. For Cover, CHAIR, P., and R., colored values show absolute changes from the corresponding backbone baseline (green: improvement, red: degradation). The best results within each backbone are in bold .
Method
Random
Popular
Adversarial
Acc. ↑
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
Acc. ↑
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
Acc. ↑
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
[CVPR’24] LLaVA-v1.5-7B
83.8
92.4
73.7
82.0
82.6
89.7
73.7
80.9
79.7
83.8
73.7
78.4
+ [CVPR’24] OPERA
89.2
93.4
85.2
89.1
86.8
88.0
85.2
86.6
81.2
78.8
85.2
81.9
+ [CVPR’24] VCD
85.4
92.8
76.8
84.0
83.3
88.3
76.8
82.2
80.4
82.8
76.8
79.7
+ [CVPR’25] Devils-in-Mid.
56.0
54.6
70.3
61.5
56.2
54.8
70.9
61.8
54.5
53.5
69.1
60.3
+ [ICML’25] MARINE
86.5
91.0
79.0
84.6
84.5
89.5
78.0
83.4
82.2
87.7
77.0
82.0
Appendix
Table D: Performance comparison on the POPE benchmark [ 18 ] . We report results across the random, popular, and adversarial splits. The best results are in bold , and the second-best results are underlined .
Figure D: Additional qualitative results on AMBER generative task. PatchGate suppresses unsupported object mentions (red) while recovering omitted visible objects(green), generating precise and complete captions.
Figure E: Additional qualitative results on AMBER and POPE QA. Correct and incorrect answers are shown in green and red, respectively. PatchGate corrects both hallucinated “Yes” answers and omitted “No” answers across diverse question types.
Figure F: Evidence aggregation and adaptive object selection. Mean aggregation retains only a few high-confidence objects, whereas max-softmax aggregation over the selected late-layer range more clearly separates supported objects from the low-evidence tail.
Method
Tag-level
Caption-level
Computational Cost
P. ↑
R. ↑
F1 ↑
∣T∣
Cover ↑
CHAIR ↓
Hal ↓
Cog ↓
Param.
Peak VRAM
Time
LLaVA-v1.5-7B
–
–
–
–
49.4
7.5
31.4
3.6
7.0 B
14.6 GB
2.92 s
+ GroundingDINO
91.1
50.4
64.9
5.2
51.3
7.3
33.3
3.6
7.2 B
16.2 GB
3.26 s
+ RAM++ (default)
97.0
59.6
71.1
11.6
50.2
7.8
36.8
4.2
7.3 B
16.9 GB
3.17 s
+ RAM++ (top- 10 )
95.8
53.0
68.3
10.0
50.1
8.2
37.2
4.3
7.3 B
16.9 GB
3.17 s
+ VEX (Ours; Sec. 3.1 )
84.8
49.2
62.3
12.9
56.0
6.6
34.3
3.0
7.0 B
14.9 GB
3.30 s
Appendix
Table K: Comparison of internal (VEX; Sec. 3.1 ) and external object inventories.
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) often hallucinate objects that are absent from an image. Despite recent progress, existing mitigation methods still lack reliable object-level grounding diagnostics and therefore tend to apply coarse-grained interventions, which can impair visual understanding, shorten responses, and reduce coverage of genuinely grounded objects. The key challenge is thus to detect, during generation, whether each emerging object mention is supported by reliable visual evidence, so that hallucination can be mitigated selectively. Yet output confidence reflects next-token plausibility rather than visual support, allowing language priors to make absent objects appear certain. We show that the missing diagnostic evidence is encoded in an Intrinsic Grounding Signature (IGS), a distributed signed attention pattern that remains informative for such confident hallucinations. Based on IGS, we propose Verifier-Guided Decoding (VGD), a decoding framework in which a lightweight verifier examines each emerging object mention, rolls back the KV cache when the mention is identified as high risk, suppresses the object and its synonyms, and regenerates the affected continuation. Because VGD intervenes only on object mentions identified as high risk, it reduces object hallucination while preserving the model's original visual understanding and grounded object coverage. Experiments on CHAIR and AMBER-G show that VGD achieves state-of-the-art object hallucination reduction: at @rec90, it cuts AMBER-G CHAIR by 43.6% while retaining 99.6% of grounded-object coverage, and reduces CHAIR-MSCOCO CHAIRi/CHAIRs by 37.0%/30.4% without shortening captions.
Lei Yang, Xinze Liu, Dayan Wu +7
Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) hallucinate objects that are not present, and a growing line of work tries to curb this by feeding the model its own generated caption as auxiliary evidence -- assuming that a caption, once available, is something to consume. We show this fails: naively appending a caption can lower accuracy rather than raise it, dropping Qwen2.5-VL-3B† on HallusionBench by nearly ten points. To understand why, we build GD-Probe, a diagnostic set that pairs a global and a detail question on the same image, so that any difference in caption effect is attributable to the question alone. Caption utility proves to be a per-query property: the same caption helps global questions and harms detail ones, through a single mechanism -- an embedded caption competes with the image for attention and pulls the model's evidence onto its own text -- whose sign is set by whether the caption covers the queried content. Crucially, this regime is readable from quantities the decoder already emits, with no attention access or grounding. We turn this into GEASS (Gated Evidence-Adaptive Selective Caption Trust), a training-free, logit-level module that decides per query how much of the caption to trust, gating it by the clean path's confidence, weighting it by the entropy reduction it induces, and raising the evidence bar when the two pathways disagree. Across four VLMs and two benchmarks (POPE and HallusionBench), GEASS improves over both vanilla inference and contrastive decoding under a single fixed setting, adding only two forward passes and no parameters.
Large vision-language models often exhibit object hallucination, generating claims that are not supported by the input image. To mitigate this issue, we propose Evidence-Guided Visual Claim Admission (EGVCA), a training-free framework that admits a semantic claim only when it receives sufficient image-dependent support. EGVCA measures this support by comparing the claim likelihood under the observed image and a visual-null input. For captioning, it controls semantic expansion without altering token generation. For binary visual question answering, it combines atomic visual support with the image-induced change in the model's native Yes--No margin. Experiments on CHAIR, POPE, and MME across three LVLM backbones show that EGVCA substantially reduces object hallucination while preserving caption quality. It achieves the highest POPE F1 in eight of nine backbone--sampling settings and improves the native MME total score on all three backbones. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of claim-level admission as a simple alternative to token-level distribution correction.
Hyeonggeun Han, Taehyun Cho, Sangwoo Hong
Independent Researcher · Vector Institute · Fields Institute +2