Wang Chun

Xinmiao Hu, Chun Wang, Ruihe An et al.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in visual understanding tasks, yet they often suffer from object hallucinations--generating descriptions of objects that are inconsistent with or entirely absent from the input. This issue is closely related to dataset biases, where frequent co-occurrences of objects lead to entangled semantic representations across modalities. As a result, models may erroneously activate object representations that are commonly associated with the input but not actually present. To address this, we propose a causality-driven disentanglement framework that mitigates hallucinations through causal intervention. Our approach includes a Causal-Driven Projector in the visual pathway and a Causal Intervention Module integrated into the final transformer layer of the language model. These components work together to reduce spurious correlations caused by biased training data. Experimental results show that our method significantly reduces hallucinations while maintaining strong performance on multiple multimodal benchmarks. Visualization analyses further confirm improved separability of object representations. The code is available at: https://github.com/IgniSavium/Causal-LLaVA

Valentin Hofmann, David Heineman, Ian Magnusson et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Language model (LM) benchmarking faces several challenges: comprehensive evaluations are costly, benchmarks often fail to measure the intended capabilities, and evaluation quality can degrade due to labeling errors and benchmark saturation. Although various strategies have been proposed to mitigate these issues, they tend to address individual aspects in isolation, neglecting broader questions about overall evaluation quality. Here, we introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions. Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level, suggesting that evaluation should adapt to each LM. Methodologically, Fluid Benchmarking estimates an item response model based on existing LM evaluation results and uses the inferred quantities to select evaluation items dynamically, similar to computerized adaptive testing in education. In our experiments, we compare Fluid Benchmarking against the common practice of random item sampling as well as more sophisticated baselines, including alternative methods grounded in item response theory. We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them (e.g., higher validity and less variance on MMLU with fifty times fewer items). Our analysis shows that the two components of Fluid Benchmarking have distinct effects: item response theory, used to map performance into a latent ability space, increases validity, while dynamic item selection reduces variance. Overall, our results suggest that LM benchmarking can be substantially improved by moving beyond static evaluation.