arXiv:2602. 07253v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Detecting hallucinations in large language models is a critical open problem with significant implications for safety and reliability.
arXiv:2607. 04163v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in visual understanding tasks such as image captioning and visual question answering.
arXiv:2608.30480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Object hallucination remains a persistent reliability issue in large vision-language models, where generated object mentions may sound plausible but...
In 2026, we held the fourth iteration of the SHROOM Shared Task series: SHROOM-Visions (\textbf{S}hared-task on \textbf{H}allucinations and \textbf{R}elated \textbf{O}bservable \textbf{O}vergeneration...
In 2026, the SHROOM-Visions shared task was launched at the UncertaiNLP Workshop co‑located with EMNLP to address hallucinations in large vision‑language models. The task builds on the SHEEP dataset and asks participants to detect and classify fine‑grained hallucination spans in image‑conditioned text generation across four languages (Chinese, English, French, Italian) using a five‑class taxonomy. The competition attracted 27 teams and over 600 system submissions, with top systems achieving character‑level, label‑conditioned, and IoU scores of 0.58, 0.46, and 0.51 respectively, surpassing baselines by 30‑40 points.
arXiv:2608. 10835v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) achieve impressive visual reasoning and dialogue capabilities, yet frequently hallucinate content unsupported by the visual input.
The paper proposes a hidden‑state probing method for detecting hallucinations at the span level in large language model outputs, moving beyond token‑wise binary classification. By examining layer‑wise activation patterns, the approach identifies the exact onset and continuation tokens of hallucinations, achieving higher precision‑recall AUC than random baselines despite class imbalance. Additionally, the authors introduce a cross‑model detection framework where one model observes another’s internal representations, showing that an external observer can match or surpass the generator’s own self‑detection of hallucination onsets, even when the observer is smaller.
The article surveys hallucination issues in Large Vision‑Language Models (LVLMs), a type of multimodal foundation model that blends visual data with large language models. It categorizes hallucination causes into model architecture and data quality, presents a taxonomy of mitigation strategies, and critically evaluates existing evaluation benchmarks from both discriminative and generative viewpoints. The survey also outlines open challenges and future research directions to improve LVLM reliability and trustworthiness.
arXiv:2607. 07507v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucinations in vision language models (VLMs) are commonly treated as semantic errors, yet they often arise from partial or ambiguous visual evidence.
arXiv:2607. 10476v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful tool for retrieving knowledge through seamless, human-like interactions.
arXiv:2606. 06959v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination detection is essential for the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2608. 16353v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Even well-aligned large language models confidently generate factually incorrect text, making hallucination a persistent reliability risk in high-stakes deployments.
The paper reports a submission to the SHROOM-Visions shared task, aiming to detect and classify hallucinated character spans in vision‑language model outputs across four languages. The authors use multiple fine‑tuned vision‑language models as independent annotators, combine their predictions via character‑level majority voting, and also investigate activation probes. Their method achieved first place in three of the four languages and consistently ranked on the podium for all languages and metrics, with analysis showing that model disagreement mirrors human annotator disagreement.