However, Is asingle comparison between superior and inferior responses sufficient for preference learning in MLLMs? Upon consideration, we find that a multi-level preference framework offers greater benefits for preference learning, primarily due to two main intuitive advantages.

Despite numerous attempts to solve the issue of hallucination since the inception of neural language models, it remains a problem in even frontier large language models today. Why is this the case? We walk through definitions of hallucination used in the literature from a historical perspective up to the current day, and fold them into a single definition of hallucination, wherein different prior definitions focus on different aspects of our definition. At its core, we argue that hallucination is simply inaccurate (internal) world modeling, in a form where it is observable to the user (e.g., stating a fact which contradicts a knowledge base, or producing a summary which contradicts a known source). By varying the reference world model as well as the knowledge conflict policy (e.g., knowledge base vs. in-context), we arrive at the different existing definitions of hallucination present in the literature. We argue that this unified view is useful because it forces evaluations to make clear their assumed "world" or source of truth, clarifies what should and should not be called hallucination (as opposed to planning or reward/incentive-related errors), and provides a common language to compare benchmarks and mitigation techniques. Building on this definition, we outline plans for a family of benchmarks in which hallucinations are defined as mismatches with synthetic but fully specified world models in different environments, and sketch out how these benchmarks can use such settings to stress-test and improve the world modeling components of language models.

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) gain widespread applicability, it is becoming increasingly desirable to adapt them for diverse user needs. In this paper, we study the adaptation of MLLMs through controlled decoding. T o achieve this, we introduce the first method for reward-guided decoding of MLLMs and demonstrate its application in improving their visual grounding. Our method involves building reward models for visual grounding and using them to guide the MLLM's decoding process. Concretely, we build two separate reward models to independently control the degree of object precision and recall in the model's output. Our approach enables on-the-fly con-trollability of an MLLM's inference process in two ways: first, by giving control over the relative importance of each reward function during decoding, allowing a user to dynamically trade off object precision for recall in image captioning tasks; second, by giving control over the breadth of the search during decoding, allowing the user to control the trade-off between the amount of test-time compute and the degree of visual grounding. W e evaluate our method on standard object hallucination benchmarks, showing that it provides significant controllability over MLLM inference, while consistently outperforming existing hallucination mitigation methods.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in multimodal tasks, but visual object hallucination remains a persistent issue. It refers to scenarios where models generate inaccurate visual object-related information based on the query input, potentially leading to misinformation and concerns about safety and reliability. Previous works focus on the evaluation and mitigation of visual hallucinations, but the underlying causes have not been comprehensively investigated. In this paper, we analyze each component of LLaVA-like LVLMs -- the large language model, the vision backbone, and the projector -- to identify potential sources of error and their impact. Based on our observations, we propose methods to mitigate hallucination for each problematic component. Additionally, we developed two hallucination benchmarks: QA-VisualGenome, which emphasizes attribute and relation hallucinations, and QA-FB15k, which focuses on cognition-based hallucinations.

To develop trustworthy Vision-Language Models (VLMs), it is essential to address adversarial robustness and hallucination mitigation, both of which impact factual accuracy in high-stakes applications such as defense and healthcare. Existing methods primarily focus on either adversarial defense or hallucination post-hoc correction, leaving a gap in unified robustness strategies. We introduce \textbf{Hydra}, an adaptive agentic framework that enhances plug-in VLMs through iterative reasoning, structured critiques, and cross-model verification, improving both resilience to adversarial perturbations and intrinsic model errors. Hydra employs an Action-Critique Loop, where it retrieves and critiques visual information, leveraging Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and In-Context Learning (ICL) techniques to refine outputs dynamically. Unlike static post-hoc correction methods, Hydra adapts to both adversarial manipulations and intrinsic model errors, making it robust to malicious perturbations and hallucination-related inaccuracies. We evaluate Hydra on four VLMs, three hallucination benchmarks, two adversarial attack strategies, and two adversarial defense methods, assessing performance on both clean and adversarial inputs. Results show that Hydra surpasses plug-in VLMs and state-of-the-art (SOTA) dehallucination methods, even without explicit adversarial defenses, demonstrating enhanced robustness and factual consistency. By bridging adversarial resistance and hallucination mitigation, Hydra provides a scalable, training-free solution for improving the reliability of VLMs in real-world applications.

Despite the rapid advancement of large language models, they remain highly susceptible to generating hallucinations, which significantly hinders their widespread application. Hallucination research requires dynamic and fine-grained evaluation. However, most existing hallucination benchmarks (especially in Chinese language) rely on human annotations, making automatical and cost-effective hallucination evaluation challenging. To address this, we introduce HaluAgent, an agentic framework that automatically constructs fine-grained QA dataset based on some knowledge documents. Our experiments demonstrate that the manually designed rules and prompt optimization can improve the quality of generated data. Using HaluAgent, we construct C-FAITH, a Chinese QA hallucination benchmark created from 1,399 knowledge documents obtained from web scraping, totaling 60,702 entries. We comprehensively evaluate 16 mainstream LLMs with our proposed C-FAITH, providing detailed experimental results and analysis.

Foundation Models that are capable of processing and generating multi-modal data have transformed AI's role in medicine. However, a key limitation of their reliability is hallucination, where inaccurate or fabricated information can impact clinical decisions and patient safety. We define medical hallucination as any instance in which a model generates misleading medical content. This paper examines the unique characteristics, causes, and implications of medical hallucinations, with a particular focus on how these errors manifest themselves in real-world clinical scenarios. Our contributions include (1) a taxonomy for understanding and addressing medical hallucinations, (2) benchmarking models using medical hallucination dataset and physician-annotated LLM responses to real medical cases, providing direct insight into the clinical impact of hallucinations, and (3) a multi-national clinician survey on their experiences with medical hallucinations. Our results reveal that inference techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Search Augmented Generation can effectively reduce hallucination rates. However, despite these improvements, non-trivial levels of hallucination persist. These findings underscore the ethical and practical imperative for robust detection and mitigation strategies, establishing a foundation for regulatory policies that prioritize patient safety and maintain clinical integrity as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare. The feedback from clinicians highlights the urgent need for not only technical advances but also for clearer ethical and regulatory guidelines to ensure patient safety. A repository organizing the paper resources, summaries, and additional information is available at https://github.com/mitmedialab/medical hallucination.

Hallucination issues persistently plagued current multimodal large language models (MLLMs). While existing research primarily focuses on object-level or attribute-level hallucinations, sidelining the more sophisticated relation hallucinations that necessitate advanced reasoning abilities from MLLMs. Besides, recent benchmarks regarding relation hallucinations lack in-depth evaluation and effective mitigation. Moreover, their datasets are typically derived from a systematic annotation process, which could introduce inherent biases due to the predefined process. To handle the aforementioned challenges, we introduce Reefknot, a comprehensive benchmark specifically targeting relation hallucinations, consisting of over 20,000 samples derived from real-world scenarios. Specifically, we first provide a systematic definition of relation hallucinations, integrating perspectives from perceptive and cognitive domains. Furthermore, we construct the relation-based corpus utilizing the representative scene graph dataset Visual Genome (VG), from which semantic triplets follow real-world distributions. Our comparative evaluation across three distinct tasks revealed a substantial shortcoming in the capabilities of current MLLMs to mitigate relation hallucinations. Finally, we advance a novel confidence-based mitigation strategy tailored to tackle the relation hallucinations problem. Across three datasets, including Reefknot, we observed an average reduction of 9.75% in the hallucination rate. We believe our paper sheds valuable insights into achieving trustworthy multimodal intelligence. Our dataset and code will be released upon paper acceptance.

Despite the rapid progress and outstanding performance of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) in recent years, LVLMs have been plagued by the issue of hallucination, i.e., LVLMs tend to generate responses that are inconsistent with the corresponding visual inputs. To evaluate the degree of hallucination in LVLMs, previous works have proposed a series of benchmarks featuring different types of tasks and evaluation metrics. However, we find that the quality of the existing hallucination benchmarks varies, with some suffering from problems, e.g., inconsistent evaluation results under repeated tests, and misalignment with human evaluation. To this end, we propose a Hallucination benchmark Quality Measurement framework (HQM), which leverages various indicators to assess the reliability and validity of existing hallucination benchmarks separately. Specifically, for reliability we explore test-retest reliability and parallel-forms reliability, while for validity we examine criterion validity and coverage of hallucination types. Furthermore, based on the results of our quality measurement, we construct a High-Quality Hallucination Benchmark (HQH) for LVLMs. We conduct an extensive evaluation of over 10 representative LVLMs, including GPT-4o and Gemini-Vision-Pro, to provide an in-depth analysis of the hallucination issues in existing models.

The recent success of large language and vision models on vision question answering (VQA), particularly their applications in medicine (Med-VQA), has shown a great potential of realizing effective visual assistants for healthcare. However, these models are not extensively tested on the hallucination phenomenon in clinical settings. Here, we created a hallucination benchmark of medical images paired with question-answer sets and conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the state-of-the-art models. The study provides an in-depth analysis of current models limitations and reveals the effectiveness of various prompting strategies.