Daily Papers

Multimodal large language models have made significant advancements in recent years, yet they still suffer from a common issue known as the "hallucination problem" where the models generate textual descriptions that contain inaccurate or non-existent content from the image. To address this issue, this paper introduces a novel strategy: Hallucination-Aware Direct Preference Optimization (HA-DPO). Our approach treats the hallucination problem as a unique preference selection issue, where the model is trained to favor the non-hallucinating response when presented with two responses of the same image (one accurate and one hallucinating). This paper also presents an efficient process for constructing hallucination sample pairs to ensure high-quality, style-consistent pairs for stable HA-DPO training. We applied this strategy to two mainstream multimodal models, and the results showed a significant reduction in the hallucination problem and an enhancement in the models' generalization capabilities. With HA-DPO, the MiniGPT-4 model demonstrates significant advancements: POPE accuracy increases from 51.13% to 85.66% (34.5% absolute improvement), and the MME score escalates from 968.58 to 1365.76 (41% relative improvement). The code, models, and datasets will be made publicly available.

Hallucination is a big shadow hanging over the rapidly evolving Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), referring to the phenomenon that the generated text is inconsistent with the image content. In order to mitigate hallucinations, existing studies mainly resort to an instruction-tuning manner that requires retraining the models with specific data. In this paper, we pave a different way, introducing a training-free method named Woodpecker. Like a woodpecker heals trees, it picks out and corrects hallucinations from the generated text. Concretely, Woodpecker consists of five stages: key concept extraction, question formulation, visual knowledge validation, visual claim generation, and hallucination correction. Implemented in a post-remedy manner, Woodpecker can easily serve different MLLMs, while being interpretable by accessing intermediate outputs of the five stages. We evaluate Woodpecker both quantitatively and qualitatively and show the huge potential of this new paradigm. On the POPE benchmark, our method obtains a 30.66%/24.33% improvement in accuracy over the baseline MiniGPT-4/mPLUG-Owl. The source code is released at https://github.com/BradyFU/Woodpecker.

Generative Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are prone to generate plausible-sounding textual answers that, however, are not always grounded in the input image. We investigate this phenomenon, usually referred to as "hallucination" and show that it stems from an excessive reliance on the language prior. In particular, we show that as more tokens are generated, the reliance on the visual prompt decreases, and this behavior strongly correlates with the emergence of hallucinations. To reduce hallucinations, we introduce Multi-Modal Mutual-Information Decoding (M3ID), a new sampling method for prompt amplification. M3ID amplifies the influence of the reference image over the language prior, hence favoring the generation of tokens with higher mutual information with the visual prompt. M3ID can be applied to any pre-trained autoregressive VLM at inference time without necessitating further training and with minimal computational overhead. If training is an option, we show that M3ID can be paired with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to improve the model's reliance on the prompt image without requiring any labels. Our empirical findings show that our algorithms maintain the fluency and linguistic capabilities of pre-trained VLMs while reducing hallucinations by mitigating visually ungrounded answers. Specifically, for the LLaVA 13B model, M3ID and M3ID+DPO reduce the percentage of hallucinated objects in captioning tasks by 25% and 28%, respectively, and improve the accuracy on VQA benchmarks such as POPE by 21% and 24%.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

This article presents an experiment in fine-tuning a pretrained causal language model (Meta's Llama 3.1 8B Instruct) for aiding in three fundamental tasks of philological research: chronological and geographic attribution as well as text restoration in ancient Greek inscriptions and documentary papyri. Using a prompt-based instruct approach, the fine-tuned models surpass the state of the art in key metrics. For inscriptions, the models achieve a lower average character error rate (CER) of 22.5% (vs. 26.3%), while closely matching top-1 accuracy (60.9% vs. 61.8%) and top-20 accuracy (77.5% vs. 78.3%) for sequences up to 10 characters. They also provide a practical advantage by ignoring spaces during reconstruction, aligning better with the scriptio continua typically used in ancient written artifacts. In geographic attribution, the model outperforms previous benchmarks with a top-1 accuracy of 75.0% (vs. 70.8%) and a top-3 accuracy of 83.7% (vs. 82.1%). For dating, it achieves an average deviation of 26.2 years (vs. 29.3) and a median deviation of 1 year (vs. 3) from the actual date range. The models also set new baselines for documentary papyri, with a CER of 16.3%, a top-1 accuracy of 71.3%, and top-20 of 85.0% in text reconstruction; a top-1 accuracy of 66.4% and top-3 of 79.9% in geographic attribution; and, in chronological attribution, a deviation of 21.7 years from the actual termini post/ante quem, with a median deviation of 0 years.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.