arXiv Machine Learning

SpurLens: Automatic Detection of Spurious Cues in Multimodal LLMs

arXiv:2503. 08884v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Unimodal vision models are known to rely on spurious correlations, but it remains unclear to what extent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar biases despite language supervision.

arXiv AI
Jun 16

Mitigating Object Hallucinations in LVLMs via Attention Imbalance Rectification

arXiv:2603. 24058v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Object hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) severely compromises their reliability in real-world applications, posing a critical barrier to their deployment in high-stakes scenarios such as autonomous driving and medical image analysis.

By Han Sun, Qin Li, Peixin Wang, Min Zhang
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes

The paper introduces CAIT, a benchmark of 400 synthetic scenes featuring counter‑intuitive actions that challenge multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Human participants and proprietary models like Claude and Gemini perform well, but standard open‑source instruction‑tuned MLLMs fail, largely due to a strong language prior that overrides contradictory visual evidence. The study shows that Chain‑of‑Thought reasoning can help but introduces new issues, while targeted fine‑tuning and structured prompting can reduce reliance on language priors and improve visual grounding.

By Chen Ling, Tongwei Zhang, Hanqian Li, Nai Ding
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

When Bias Pretends to Be Truth: How Spurious Correlations Undermine Hallucination Detection in LLMs

The paper examines a specific type of hallucination in large language models caused by spurious correlations—unintended, statistically prominent associations in training data such as surnames linked to nationalities. These hallucinations are confidently produced, persist regardless of model scaling or refusal fine‑tuning, and evade existing detection methods like confidence filtering and inner‑state probing. The authors use controlled synthetic experiments and evaluations on both open‑source and proprietary LLMs, including GPT‑5, to demonstrate the failure of current detection techniques and provide a theoretical explanation for why statistical biases undermine confidence‑based approaches.

By Shaowen Wang, Yiqi Dong, Ruinian Chang, Tansheng Zhu, Yuebo Sun, Kaifeng Lyu, Jian Li