Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) remain prone to hallucinations, producing responses that are irrelevant or inconsistent with the multimodal input. Existing mitigation methods mainly rely on external supervision, output calibration, or attention regulation, leaving the internal representation dynamics of autoregressive generation underexplored. We identify an inference-time failure mode in which cross-modal representations degrade across decoder layers and drift across generation steps, destabilizing token prediction and increasing hallucination risk. We propose Dynamic Alignment Compensation (DAC), a training-free inference-time method that detects representation divergence and selectively applies lightweight residual compensation. DAC combines Layer-wise Semantic Compensation to mitigate inter-layer degradation with Sequential Semantic Correction to constrain temporal drift. Experiments on nine hallucination-focused and general-purpose multimodal benchmarks across multiple LVLM backbones show that DAC consistently reduces hallucinations while maintaining strong overall performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance comparison of different methods across multiple benchmarks. Hal-Bench denotes HallusionBench.
Figure 2: Layer-wise and temporal JS-divergence patterns in hallucinated and non-hallucinated LVLM generation. (a) Inter-layer JS divergence is projected onto image and text tokens at representative decoder layers. Hallucinated cases (bottom) show more frequent and stronger high-divergence regions than non-hallucinated cases (top), mainly in middle-to-late layers. (b) Across decoding steps, hallucinated object tokens exhibit larger temporal drift than non-hallucinated object tokens, with a similar middle-to-late-layer concentration.
Figure 3: Overview of Dynamic Alignment Compensation (DAC). LSC compensates hidden states with large inter-layer representation divergence, while SSC constrains temporal drift of the current token using a layer-wise cache. Green checks denote triggered updates; red crosses denote unchanged states.
Backbone
Method
MME
MM-Vet
MMBench
TextVQA
MMBench-CN
Perception ↑
Cognition ↑
Overall ↑
Score ↑
Accuracy ↑
Accuracy ↑
Accuracy ↑
LLaVA-1.5
Regular
1406.53
335.36
1741.89
31.10
62.80
54.18
57.56
OPERA
1473.62
310.71
1784.34
32.00
62.80
–
–
ICD
1341.63
295.36
1636.99
25.90
39.78
47.59
45.36
VCD
1302.66
290.36
1593.02
30.20
54.21
45.71
51.46
MemVR
1465.78
360.71
1826.49
32.40
63.75
54.22
56.62
Table 1: Performance evaluation on MME, MM-Vet, MMBench, TextVQA, and MMBench-CN benchmarks.
Method
Random
Popular
Adversarial
Average
Accuracy ↑
F1-score ↑
Accuracy ↑
F1-score ↑
Accuracy ↑
F1-score ↑
Accuracy ↑
F1-score ↑
LLaVA-1.5
83.49
82.28
79.98
79.34
76.03
76.26
79.83
79.29
+OPERA
87.53
86.45
84.21
83.50
80.88
80.69
84.21
83.55
+ICD
84.87
83.27
82.93
81.45
81.07
79.96
82.96
81.56
+VCD
86.84
86.83
82.65
83.37
77.31
79.28
82.27
83.16
+MemVR
88.50
87.34
87.10
86.01
85.20
84.28
86.93
85.88
Table 2: Performance evaluation on the POPE benchmark.
Backbone
Method
MM-Vet (Score) ↑
MMBench (Acc.) ↑
TextVQA (Acc.) ↑
MMBench-CN (Acc.) ↑
LLaVA-Bench (Score) ↑
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Regular
62.1
78.35
77.41
77.06
82.37
+MemVR
60.2
77.83
77.45
75.51
83.42
+ICD
20.9
75.94
77.09
73.71
78.29
+VCD
57.4
75.17
72.76
74.57
80.38
+DAC
63.6
78.92
77.82
77.41
86.60
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Regular
67.5
83.50
77.86
81.10
89.85
Table 3: Generalization to recent LVLM backbones on general-purpose multimodal benchmarks.
Method
Cs↓
Ci↓
Recall ↑
Len.
LLaVA-1.5
47.6
13.3
80.6
99.7
+OPERA
47.6
13.5
79.0
93.2
+ICD
56.2
16.3
16.3
103.4
+VCD
55.0
15.8
77.4
101.2
+MemVR
46.6
13.0
80.8
99.6
+DAC
28.2
7.3
72.0
88.9
Table 4: Performance evaluation on CHAIR. Cs and Ci denote sentence-level and instance-level hallucination rates, respectively; Len. denotes average response length.
Backbone
Method
C. ↑
D. ↑
Cp. ↑
All ↑
Avg. ↑
LLaVA-1.5
Regular
51.2
50.3
70.0
56.6
57.03
ICD
49.3
46.9
63.1
54.9
53.55
VCD
50.0
47.2
62.0
54.7
53.48
MemVR
53.4
50.7
71.1
57.4
60.53
DAC
57.5
55.8
73.1
59.8
61.55
Qwen-VL-Chat
Regular
68.9
61.6
82.3
73.3
71.53
Table 5: Performance evaluation on LLaVA-Bench. C., D., Cp., and Avg. denote Conversation, Detail, Complex, and Average, respectively.
Backbone
Method
MME(Perception) ↑
MME(Cognition) ↑
MME(Overall) ↑
POPE(Acc.) ↑
POPE(F1) ↑
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Regular
1518.15
621.78
2139.93
87.38
86.20
+MemVR
1499.00
625.35
2124.35
87.51
86.36
+ICD
1473.30
571.42
2044.72
87.31
86.08
+VCD
1512.03
595.35
2107.38
86.91
85.80
+DAC
1528.00
621.78
2149.78
87.67
86.43
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Regular
1692.78
624.28
2317.06
87.67
86.54
Table 6: Comparison on MME and POPE across recent LVLM backbones.MME reports perception, cognition, and overall scores; POPE reports average accuracy and F1 over three splits. Best or tied-best results within each backbone block are bolded.
Method
fACC ↑
qACC ↑
easyA ↑
hardA ↑
aACC ↑
LLaVA-1.5
17.9
8.13
36.0
36.7
41.5
+OPERA
16.2
5.49
37.6
35.4
41.2
+ICD
13.9
8.35
36.9
33.5
38.2
+VCD
13.9
11.4
33.0
34.7
41.1
+MemVR
17.9
9.01
36.9
37.7
42.5
+DAC
14.2
17.05
44.4
37.3
45.5
Table 7: Performance evaluation on HallusionBench.
LSC
SSC
Rec.
OCR
Kno.
Gen.
Spa.
Math
Total
×
×
36.4
20.1
22.3
22.2
24.8
7.7
31.1
×
✓
37.2
23.5
23.3
22.6
28.9
7.7
33.0
✓
×
37.9
23.6
24.6
24.5
28.3
7.7
33.3
✓
✓
37.9
25.1
24.9
24.1
30.1
7.7
33.9
Table 8: Ablation results of LSC and SSC.
Figure 4: JS-divergence diagnostics on CHAIR with LLaVA-1.5. (a),(b) show the inter-layer high-JS ratio and mean JS across decoder layers, while (c),(d) show the corresponding temporal statistics across decoding steps. Mean-JS curves compare hallucinated and non-hallucinated object tokens. Gray regions highlight the middle-to-late layers where high-JS outliers concentrate, and shaded bands denote standard error.
Method
Latency (ms/token) ↓
Throughput (tokens/ms) ↑
T/80 Tokens (ms) ↓
Memory (MB) ↓
Greedy
36.8
0.027
2946.91
13797
Sampling
37.1
0.027
2972.99
13797
MemVR
36.8
0.027
2949.12
13800
ICD
79.0
0.013
6320.52
13778
OPERA
137.1
0.008
11501.57
21110
VCD
76.1
0.013
6085.18
13781
Table 9: Inference efficiency on MM-Vet with LLaVA-1.5. Best or tied-best values are bolded.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
HObj@100 μ ↓
HObj@100 M ↓
Regular
1.1206
1.0314
DAC
0.5797
0.6569
Appendix
Table 10: Length-normalized CHAIR analysis on LLaVA-1.5. HObj@100 μ measures hallucinated object mentions per 100 generated tokens at the corpus level, while HObj@100 M averages this rate over samples.
Figure 5: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 6: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 7: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 8: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 9: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 10: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 11: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 12: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 13: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 14: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 15: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 16: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Figure 17: A case study comparing the levels of hallucination among various baselines
Despite the impressive capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), they remain susceptible to hallucinations, where generated content is inconsistent with the input image. Existing training-free hallucination mitigation methods often suffer from unstable performance and high sensitivity to hyperparameter settings, which limits their practicality and broader adoption. In this paper, we propose Decoding with Inter-layer Consistency via Layer Aggregation (DCLA), a training-free decoding mechanism that requires no retraining, fine-tuning, or access to external knowledge bases. Specifically, DCLA constructs a dynamic semantic reference by aggregating representations from previous layers and uses it to correct semantically deviated layers, thereby enforcing inter-layer consistency. Experiments across seven LVLMs and multiple benchmarks demonstrate the generality of DCLA: it surpasses standard decoding by 28.58 MME points on LLaVA1.5-7B and 42.6 MME points on Qwen2.5-VL, while improving POPE accuracy by 2.74 percentage points in the strongest setting.
Kai Tang, Jinhao You, Yichen Guo +8
Peking University · University of Pennsylvania · Nanyang Technological University +4
Although Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have made substantial progress, hallucination, where generated text is not grounded in the visual input, remains a challenge. As LVLMs become stronger, previously reported hallucination patterns, such as linguistic bias and overthinking phenomenon, become far less consistent, making the corresponding mitigation techniques substantially less effective. In this paper, we introduce an Internal self-Correction mechanism utilizing Layer Attention (ICLA) that operates directly on hidden states during generation. Each layer selectively retrieves information from all preceding layers through a diagonal cross-layer attention mechanism, enabling self-refinement without any external correction signals. With introducing and training only 0.2M and 0.1M additional parameters on LLaVA1.5-7B and Qwen2.5-VL-7B, \ours consistently improves visual grounding across multiple hallucination benchmarks, demonstrating its effectiveness for more advanced LVLMs.
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) achieve strong multimodal performance, but still suffer from hallucinations caused by unstable visual grounding and over-reliance on language priors. Existing training-free decoding methods typically apply calibration at every decoding step, introducing unnecessary computation and potentially disrupting stable predictions. We address this problem by identifying layer-wise hesitation, a simple signal of grounding instability reflected by fluctuations in token preference across intermediate layers. Based on this observation, we propose Hesitation-Triggered Differential Calibration (HTDC), a training-free decoding framework that preserves standard full-branch inference and activates calibration only at hesitation-prone steps. When triggered, HTDC contrasts the full branch with two lightweight probes, a visual-nullification probe and a semantic-nullification probe, to suppress hallucination-prone candidates while avoiding unnecessary intervention on stable steps. Experiments on representative hallucination benchmarks show that HTDC consistently reduces hallucinations while maintaining strong task accuracy, achieving a favorable trade-off between effectiveness and computational overhead.