Robust Multimodal Large Language Models Against Modality Conflict

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07151v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 11:18:38 GMT
• Title: Robust Multimodal Large Language Models Against Modality Conflict
• Authors: Zongmeng Zhang, Wengang Zhou, Jie Zhao, Houqiang Li,
• Abstract summary: multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are prone to hallucinations in real-world scenarios.<n>We study the inherent conflicts in inputs from different modalities that place MLLMs in a dilemma and directly lead to hallucinations.<n>Three methods are proposed to alleviate the hallucination caused by modality conflict.
• Score: 94.12341487880465
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite the impressive capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in vision-language tasks, they are prone to hallucinations in real-world scenarios. This paper investigates the hallucination phenomenon in MLLMs from the perspective of modality conflict. Unlike existing works focusing on the conflicts between model responses and inputs, we study the inherent conflicts in inputs from different modalities that place MLLMs in a dilemma and directly lead to hallucinations. We formally define the modality conflict and construct a dataset named Multimodal Modality Conflict (MMMC) to simulate this phenomenon in vision-language tasks. Three methods based on prompt engineering, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning are proposed to alleviate the hallucination caused by modality conflict. Extensive experiments are conducted on the MMMC dataset to analyze the merits and demerits of these methods. Our results show that the reinforcement learning method achieves the best performance in mitigating the hallucination under modality conflict, while the supervised fine-tuning method shows promising and stable performance. Our work sheds light on the unnoticed modality conflict that leads to hallucinations and provides more insights into the robustness of MLLMs.

Related papers

• MIRAGE: Assessing Hallucination in Multimodal Reasoning Chains of MLLM [58.2298313720146]
  Multimodal hallucinations are multi-sourced and arise from diverse causes.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to adequately distinguish between perception-induced hallucinations and reasoning-induced hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T05:54:36Z)
• MLLMs are Deeply Affected by Modality Bias [158.64371871084478]
  Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promising results in integrating diverse modalities such as texts and images.<n>MLLMs are heavily influenced by modality bias, often relying on language while under-utilizing other modalities like visual inputs.<n>This paper argues that MLLMs are deeply affected by modality bias, highlighting its manifestations across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T11:49:31Z)
• Treble Counterfactual VLMs: A Causal Approach to Hallucination [6.3952983618258665]
  VisionLanguage Models (VLMs) have advanced multi-modal tasks like image captioning, visual question answering, and reasoning.<n>They often generate hallucinated outputs inconsistent with the visual context or prompt.<n>Existing studies link hallucination to statistical biases, language priors, and biased feature learning but lack a structured causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-08T11:13:05Z)
• SegSub: Evaluating Robustness to Knowledge Conflicts and Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models [6.52323086990482]
  Vision language models (VLM) demonstrate sophisticated multimodal reasoning yet are prone to hallucination when confronted with knowledge conflicts.<n>This research introduces segsub, a framework for applying targeted image perturbations to investigate VLM resilience against knowledge conflicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T00:26:38Z)
• A Debate-Driven Experiment on LLM Hallucinations and Accuracy [7.821303946741665]
  This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucination in large language models (LLMs) Multiple instances of GPT-4o-Mini models engage in a debate-like interaction prompted with questions from the TruthfulQA dataset. One model is deliberately instructed to generate plausible but false answers while the other models are asked to respond truthfully.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T11:41:27Z)
• The Curse of Multi-Modalities: Evaluating Hallucinations of Large Multimodal Models across Language, Visual, and Audio [118.75449542080746]
  This paper presents the first systematic investigation of hallucinations in large multimodal models (LMMs) Our study reveals two key contributors to hallucinations: overreliance on unimodal priors and spurious inter-modality correlations. Our findings highlight key vulnerabilities, including imbalances in modality integration and biases from training data, underscoring the need for balanced cross-modal learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T17:59:02Z)
• Insight Over Sight: Exploring the Vision-Knowledge Conflicts in Multimodal LLMs [55.74117540987519]
  This paper explores the problem of commonsense level vision-knowledge conflict in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>We introduce an automated framework, augmented with human-in-the-loop quality control, to generate inputs designed to simulate and evaluate these conflicts in MLLMs.<n>Using this framework, we have crafted a diagnostic benchmark consisting of 374 original images and 1,122 high-quality question-answer pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:31:17Z)
• ECon: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts [56.89209046429291]
  The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems. This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T07:41:17Z)
• Unraveling Cross-Modality Knowledge Conflicts in Large Vision-Language Models [33.76903352835436]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities for capturing and reasoning over multimodal inputs. These models are prone to parametric knowledge conflicts, which arise from inconsistencies of represented knowledge between their vision and language components. We present a systematic approach to detect, interpret, and mitigate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:59:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.