Source-linked AI summary

BEAF: Observing BEfore-AFter Changes to Evaluate Hallucination in Vision-language Models

Moon Ye-Bin, Nam Hyeon-Woo, Wonseok Choi, Tae-Hyun Oh

arXiv:2407.13442v1cs.CVcs.CL

TL;DR

VLM hallucinations undermine trust, while text-only benchmarks do not fully assess behavior across image and language inputs. BEAF manipulates scenes and questions, then evaluates answer changes with four change-aware metrics. Its results suggest that some answers considered non-hallucinatory by existing benchmarks may be hallucinations, though the dataset and construction process have scope limits.

  • Problem

    Text-axis-only hallucination benchmarks make it difficult to disentangle sources of hallucination in VLMs that process both visual and text modalities.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Method

    BEAF removes objects from images, augments question-answer pairs, and uses TU, IG, SB, and ID to evaluate answers before and after scene changes.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Results

    BEAF results suggest that answers considered non-hallucinatory by existing benchmarks may be hallucinations, and TU reveals that VLMs tend to be confused by high image complexity.

    Source: §1 · p. 3, §5 · p. 14
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    BEAF provides a two-axis view of hallucination by tracking answer correctness as objects are removed from images.

    Source: §5 · pp. 13–14

    BEAF is constrained by MS-COCO’s limited object-category variety and uneven instance distribution, and manual image adjustments prevent fully automated dataset creation.

    Source: §5 · p. 14

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Vision language models (VLMs) perceive the world through a combination of a visual encoder and a large language model (LLM). The visual encoder, pre-trained on large-scale vision-text datasets, provides zero-shot generalization to visual data, and the LLM endows its high reasoning ability to VLMs. It leads VLMs to achieve high performance on wide benchmarks without fine-tuning, exhibiting zero or few-shot capability. However, recent studies show that VLMs are vulnerable to hallucination. This undesirable behavior degrades reliability and credibility, thereby making users unable to fully trust the output from VLMs. To enhance trustworthiness and better tackle the hallucination of VLMs, we curate a new evaluation dataset, called the BEfore-AFter hallucination dataset (BEAF), and introduce new metrics: True Understanding (TU), IGnorance (IG), StuBbornness (SB), and InDecision (ID). Unlike prior works that focus only on constructing questions and answers, the key idea of our benchmark is to manipulate visual scene information by image editing models and to design the metrics based on scene changes. This allows us to clearly assess whether VLMs correctly understand a given scene by observing the ability to perceive changes. We also visualize image-wise object relationship by virtue of our two-axis view: vision and text. Upon evaluating VLMs with our dataset, we observed that our metrics reveal different aspects of VLM hallucination that have not been reported before. Project page: \url{https://beafbench.github.io/}

1 Introduction

Text-only hallucination benchmarks cannot fully disentangle visual and language contributions to VLM behavior. BEAF manipulates images as well as questions and tracks answer changes to assess scene understanding.

1 Introduction

  • VLM hallucinations are outputs that do not reflect image facts, undermining the reliability and credibility of interactions.The introduction describes models incorrectly reporting an object as present when it is absent.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Text-axis-only question-and-answer evaluation can assess some hallucination behavior but makes it hard to disentangle sources in multimodal VLMs.Existing benchmarks commonly use discriminative yes/no questions generated from scene information such as bounding boxes and captions.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • BEAF changes scenes by removing objects and tracks whether answers change for the same question, enabling evaluation beyond standard accuracy.For example, removing an apple should change the answer from “Yes” to “No” for “Is there an apple?”.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Its four change-aware metrics are TU, IG, SB, and ID; the first three concern removed target objects, while ID concerns other objects.TU measures correctness before and after manipulation; IG assesses consistency across images, SB captures unchanged answers instead of correct recognition, and ID covers answer changes when the target is unchanged or absent.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • BEAF’s two-axis dataset and change-aware metrics support granular analysis, and its results suggest some answers treated as non-hallucinatory by prior benchmarks may be hallucinations.The paper also analyzes object relationships in hallucination results across vision and text axes.Source: §1 · pp. 3–4

2 Related Work

Prior VLM hallucination benchmarks largely use text-axis question-and-answer evaluation, while BEAF evaluates both questions and manipulated scene information. The supplied passages also describe VLM architecture and hallucination factors.

2 Related Work

  • VLMs combine a vision encoder, an LLM, and an alignment module that translates visual information into tokens the LLM can use.The LLM takes prompt text and visual tokens as input and produces response text tokens.Source: §2 · p. 4
  • Existing hallucination benchmarks use QnA-style evaluation and metrics such as accuracy, precision, and recall, with discriminative and generative question types.POPE and CIEM use multi-choice or yes/no questions; AMBER also evaluates open-ended caption generation by comparing extracted objects with image ground truth.Source: §2 · p. 4
  • Table 1 reports that BEAF contains 26K image-question pairs, consisting of original and manipulated ones; each original image is associated on average with 3.45 manipulated images and 11.72 questions.Source: Table 1 · p. 5
  • BEAF manipulates scene information and questions together, addressing a limitation of text-axis evaluation when objects co-occur and both image and prompt inform VLM inputs.The paper calls this vision-/text-axes evaluation and says it enables fine-grained hallucination analysis.Source: §2 · p. 5

3 BEAF Evaluation Benchmark for Hallucination

BEAF evaluates visual understanding by removing and inpainting objects, then checking whether VLM answers change appropriately. It pairs this dataset with metrics designed around before-and-after scene changes.

3 BEAF Evaluation Benchmark for Hallucination

  • BEAF evaluates scene-change awareness by removing and inpainting objects, then checking whether VLM answers change appropriately.The benchmark adds a vision-axis evaluation to address deficiencies in text-axis evaluation.Source: §3 · p. 5

3.1 Evaluation Dataset

  • BEAF contains 500 original images and 1,727 manipulated images; manual refinement removes artifacts, which the authors call crucial to benchmark fidelity and reliability.The dataset totals 2,227 images and 26,118 image-question pairs.Source: §3.1 · pp. 6–7

3.2 Evaluation Metrics

  • TU measures correct answers about removed objects before and after manipulation, IG captures incorrect answers on both versions, and SB measures repeated answers instead of recognizing the change.SB is divided into consistent-positive and consistent-negative cases.Source: §3.2 · pp. 8–9
  • ID tracks answer changes for questions unrelated to removed objects; the benchmark also combines TU and 100−ID by harmonic mean as F1-Score.Such unrelated-object answers should remain unchanged after manipulation.Source: §3.2 · p. 9

4 Experiment

The experiments evaluate zero-shot VLMs with BEAF’s change-aware and traditional metrics, then examine object-level interactions and additional open-generation and CLIP-score results. The findings show that answers often persist despite image changes, while traditional scores can understate hallucination.

4.1 Main Results

  • Among 13B models, LLaVA exceeds InstructBLIP on TU, IG, and SB, while InstructBLIP has better ID; among 7B models, Shikra leads on TU and SBp.Shikra’s location-aware training could help judge object existence.Source: §4.1 · pp. 9–10
  • VLMs often keep the same answers after scene changes, and traditional accuracy or F1 can be high even when TU is much lower, so static scores do not establish low hallucination.The authors emphasize observing answer changes along the vision axis to evaluate hallucination.Source: §4.1 · p. 10
  • VQAv2, GQA, and BEAF TU have different leaders: mPLUG-Owl2 leads VQAv2, LLaVA leads GQA, and Shikra leads TU.The authors report a negative correlation between performance and hallucination incidence.Source: §4.1 · p. 11, Table 4 · p. 11
  • The two-axis visualization tracks target-object questions against removed objects, with colors marking correctness, and illustrates cross-object shifts in answers.Removing a couch or book can change the book answer from correct to incorrect; removing a vase or book can make many incorrect answers correct.Source: §4.1 · p. 11, Figure 4 · p. 11
  • VLMs frequently fail to recognize removed traffic lights, vases, and remotes in the object-wise error analysis.The analysis plots mean error rates and 95% confidence intervals, excluding objects manipulated fewer than 20 times.Source: §4.1 · p. 12, Figure 5 · p. 12

4.2 Additional Study

  • In open generation, higher CHAIR hallucination scores coincide with lower TU, as observed for InstructBLIP-13B.CHAIRI counts hallucinated instances and CHAIRS counts sentences containing those objects; lower scores are better.Source: §4.2 · p. 12, Table 5 · p. 12
  • Manipulated images have lower CLIP scores than original images when matched with the removed-object prompt.The comparison uses cropped objects based on ground-truth boxes, averaging same-class instances when needed.Source: §4.2 · p. 13, Table 6 · p. 13
  • In a generated sample, models still mention people after all people are removed, suggesting the visual encoder may be a non-negligible source of hallucination.The authors also report that multi-class classification correctly identifies the depicted objects.Source: §4.2 · p. 13, Figure 6 · p. 13

5 Discussion and Conclusion

BEAF uses image changes and four metrics to analyze hallucination across vision and text axes. Its TU metric reveals confusion on complex images, while the benchmark remains constrained by MS-COCO and manual image adjustments.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

  • BEAF combines image-object removal with four metrics to track answer changes across vision and text axes.Fig. 7 shows answer changes for open-ended image descriptions, with hallucination parts highlighted in red.Source: §5 · p. 13, Figure 7 · p. 14
  • TU is more calibrated than traditional accuracy and reveals that VLMs tend to be confused when image complexity is high.Traditional accuracy can count correct answers guessed without reference to the image.Source: §5 · p. 14
  • The benchmark is constrained by MS-COCO’s limited object-category variety and uneven instance distribution, and manual image adjustments prevent fully automated dataset creation.The authors expect these constraints to diminish as in-painting models advance.Source: §5 · p. 14
Loading 2407.13442v1…