Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China · ModelBest Inc. · State Key Lab. of Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, P.R. China · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, China
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across a wide range of multimodal tasks. However, object hallucination remains a persistent challenge, undermining model reliability in applications such as visual question answering, embodied agents, and human-AI decision support systems. In this paper, inspired by cognitive science studies on perceptual bias, we investigate a new failure mode termed Premise-Induced Visual Fixation Hallucination (PVFH). Specifically, PVFH refers to a premise-induced reasoning error in which models become anchored to visually confusable evidence, accept a false textual premise, and subsequently generate responses about an absent yet visually plausible object. To systematically study this phenomenon, we introduce PVFH-Bench, a benchmark that automatically constructs visually confusable but absent targets and pairs the core hallucination setting with diagnostic subsets to trace how models move from object recognition to Premise-Induced Visual Fixation Hallucination. Experimental results on 10 state-of-the-art LVLMs demonstrate that all evaluated models are highly vulnerable to Premise-Induced Visual Fixation Hallucination. Moreover, we find that explicit chain-of-thought reasoning can further exacerbate this failure mode by encouraging models to overinterpret weak visual cues as supporting evidence for hallucinated objects.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A motivating example of Premise-induced Visual Fixation Hallucination: visual fixation is guided by a false premise, leading the model to fabricate a spatial relation for an absent object.
Figure 2: Premise-Induced Visual Fixation Hallucination example and PVFH-Bench construction pipeline.
Table 1: Model accuracy on PVFH-Bench across the core Premise-Induced Visual Fixation setting and three diagnostic subsets. Red italic subscripts in the Premise-Induced Visual Fixation column indicate the accuracy difference from the Visual Fixation column for the same row. +Reasoning rows report reasoning-mode results for the corresponding base model.
Figure 3: Average reasoning length and accuracy along two diagnostic paths for reasoning-mode models. The left column isolates the added effect of false-premise pressure. The right column isolates the added effect of visually confusable object.
Figure 4: Failure analysis of Premise-Induced Visual Fixation errors for reasoning-based LVLM.
Figure 5: Analyses of false-premise induced reasoning.
Figure 6: Seed model accuracy under different reasoning settings.
Figure 7: Two representative hallucination cases in Qwen3.5 Plus.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Property
Valid / Total
Valid Rate
True object
41 / 43
95.3%
False object
113 / 114
99.1%
Appendix
Table 2: Human validation of benchmark construction and automatic grading. Left: validity of deduplicated image-level presence/absence annotations. Right: agreement between blind human decisions and Qwen3.5-Flash labels on a stratified sample of 200 responses. Core PVFH denotes the Premise-Induced Visual Fixation setting.
Model
Vanilla
Visual Fixation
False Premise
Core PVFH
Overall
Overall Δ
Qwen3.5-Plus
99.22
79.46
93.41
72.09
86.05
−0.78
Seed-2.0-Lite
97.29
82.17
79.46
54.26
78.29
−4.55
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
98.84
81.01
81.01
58.91
79.94
+0.29
Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
97.67
74.42
86.82
56.98
78.97
−0.58
LLaMA-4-Scout
94.19
81.78
84.88
50.39
77.81
−0.48
LLaMA-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct
98.06
76.74
87.21
46.90
77.23
+0.29
Appendix
Table 3: Full non-reasoning leaderboard re-graded by the independent GPT-5.4-mini judge. Scores are accuracies in percentage points. Overall Δ is measured relative to Qwen3.5-Flash grading.
Setting
Stage
Mean Attn./Token
Median Attn./Token
SD Attn./Token
Mean Total Attn.
Core PVFH
Reasoning
0.0097
0.0042
0.0144
0.1491
Core PVFH
Answer
0.0069
0.0025
0.0114
0.0351
Visual Fixation
Reasoning
0.0104
0.0048
0.0140
0.0600
Visual Fixation
Answer
0.0059
0.0024
0.0090
0.0249
Appendix
Table 4: Attention assigned to the grounded true-object region in 50 paired examples. Per-token statistics summarize regional attention over the corresponding generation stage; mean total attention aggregates it across all tokens in that stage.
Statistic
Value
Images / object pairs
258
Evaluation instances
1032
Unique actual objects
160
Unique confusable objects
160
Unique generated absent objects
36
Unique objects across all roles
293
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset statistics for PVFH-Bench.
Evaluation
Images
Instances
POPE on MSCOCO ( Li et al., 2023b )
500
3,000
MME: Existence, Count, Position, Color ( Fu et al., 2025 )
120
240
PVFH-Bench
258
1,032
Appendix
Table 6: Scale comparison with controlled object-level hallucination diagnostics.
Figure 8: Chinese prompt used in the construction code for identifying a true-false object pair.
Figure 9: English rendering of the object-pair identification prompt in Figure 8 .
Relation type
Template
left_right_of_anchor
Is the {false object} to the left or to the right of the {true object}?
above_below_anchor
Is the {false object} above or below the {true object}?
closer_farther_anchor
Is the {false object} closer to the camera or farther from the camera than the {true object}?
larger_smaller_anchor
Does the {false object} appear larger or smaller than the {true object}?
overlap_left_right_anchor
Is the {false object} positioned more to the left or more to the right relative to the {true object}?
image_left_right
Is the {false object} located more toward the left side or the right side?
Appendix
Table 7: Spatial-relation templates used to instantiate false-premise questions.
Figure 10: Evaluation prompts for Raw Query, Visual Fixation Query, Premise-Induced Visual Fixation Query, and False-Premise Diagnostic Query.
Setting
Qwen3-VL-8B
Qwen3-VL-32B
POPE
88.84
89.11
Vanilla
98.45
97.67
Visual Fixation
80.62
74.03
False-Premise
81.40
88.37
Premise-Induced Visual Fixation
58.14
58.14
Appendix
Table 8: Reported POPE accuracy ( Huang et al., 2026 ) compared with PVFH-Bench accuracy for Qwen3-VL models.
Figure 11: Prompt used to classify failure mechanisms for Visual-Fixation-correct but Premise-Induced-Visual-Fixation-failed cases.
Figure 12: Prompt used to judge reasoning-chain alignment between Visual Fixation and Premise-Induced Visual Fixation settings.
Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input. Prior work has attributed hallucinations in LVLMs to factors such as limitations of the vision backbone or the dominance of the language component, yet the relative importance of these factors remains unclear. To resolve this ambiguity, We propose HalluScope, a benchmark to better understand the extent to which different factors induce hallucinations. Our analysis indicates that hallucinations largely stem from excessive reliance on textual priors and background knowledge, especially information introduced through textual instructions. To mitigate hallucinations induced by textual instruction priors, we propose HalluVL-DPO, a framework for fine-tuning off-the-shelf LVLMs towards more visually grounded responses. HalluVL-DPO leverages preference optimization using a curated training dataset that we construct, guiding the model to prefer grounded responses over hallucinated ones. We demonstrate that our optimized model effectively mitigates the targeted hallucination failure mode, while preserving or improving performance on other hallucination benchmarks and visual capability evaluations. To support reproducibility and further research, we will publicly release our evaluation benchmark, preference training dataset, and code at https://pegah-kh.github.io/projects/prompts-override-vision/ .
Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny +3
1ISIR, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris, France · 2Valeo.ai, Paris, France
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) often suffer from object hallucination, generating objects that are absent from the image. Prior work largely attributes this to insufficient visual attention. However, we find that both real and hallucinated objects receive equally strong visual attention in the model's mid-to-late layers, suggesting that the key issue may not be how much the model attends, but what it attends to and why. To this end, we decode the visual features of high-attention regions using Logit Lens, and observe that regions corresponding to real objects can be correctly decoded to the target object tokens, whereas those for hallucinated objects cannot. Building on this, we identify two hallucination mechanisms: (i) visual uncertainty, triggered by semantically similar or confusable regions; masking these regions eliminates the hallucination. (ii) contextual prior, triggered by strong co-occurrence priors; even when the initially attended region is masked, the hallucination persists and attention drifts to other regions. Based on these findings, we propose a simple yet effective training-free Detect-Mitigate framework comprising a Logit-Lens Consistency Check to detect hallucination and targeted remedies: High-Attention Regions Masking (HARM) for visual uncertainty hallucination, and Visual Evidence Enhanced Decoding (VEED) for contextual prior hallucination. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on multiple hallucination benchmarks. Code will be available.
Zichuan Wang, Songlin Yang, Bo Peng +4
School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · 3Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · 2New Laboratory of Pattern Recognition, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Science
Object level hallucination remains a central reliability challenge for vision language models (VLMs), particularly in binary object existence verification. Existing benchmarks emphasize aggregate accuracy but rarely disentangle whether errors stem from perceptual limitations or from the influence of contextual textual priors, leaving underlying failure mechanisms ambiguous. We introduce DO-Bench, a controlled diagnostic benchmark that isolates these sources through structured multimodal interventions. Rather than evaluating models in unconstrained settings, DO-Bench probes two complementary dimensions: the Prior Override dimension progressively strengthens contextual textual priors while holding visual evidence constant to assess resistance to prior pressure, and the Perception-Limited dimension incrementally enhances visual evidence from full-scene context to localized object crops to measure perceptual grounding strength. This paired design enables attribution of errors to prior suppression, perceptual insufficiency, or their interaction. We further define two diagnostic metrics, PriorRobust and PerceptionAbility, to quantify these behaviors consistently. Evaluations across diverse open- and closed-source VLMs reveal systematic differences in prior sensitivity and perceptual reliability, demonstrating that object hallucination reflects heterogeneous, mechanism dependent failure patterns beyond aggregate accuracy.
JiYang Wang, Jiawei Chen, Mengqi Xiao +3
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Multidimensional Information Processing, East China Normal University · Zhongguancun Academy