Aofan Liu

AI
h-index2
4papers
11citations
Novelty58%
AI Score44

4 Papers

12.8CVMay 13
Dual-Pathway Circuits of Object Hallucination in Vision-Language Models

Jiaxin Liu, Ding Zhong, Yue Wang et al.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in bridging visual perception and natural language understanding, enabling a wide range of multimodal reasoning tasks. However, they often produce object hallucinations, describing content absent from the input image, which limits their reliability and interpretability. To address this limitation, we propose Dual-Pathway Circuit Analysis, a framework that identifies and characterizes hallucination-related circuits in VLMs for mechanistic understanding and causal probing. We first apply activation patching across five architecturally diverse VLMs to identify a visual grounding pathway that supports correct predictions and a hallucination pathway that drives erroneous outputs. We then introduce Conditional Pathway Analysis (CPA) to characterize pathway-level interactions, revealing that grounding components remain strongly redundant in both correct and hallucinating samples but undergo a consistent polarity flip, shifting from supporting the ground truth on correct samples to aligning with the hallucinated answer on erroneous ones. We further perform targeted suppression of hallucination-pathway components, showing that scaling these components reduces object hallucination by up to 76% with minimal accuracy cost, and validate that the same circuit selectively transfers to relational but not attribute hallucination. Evaluations on POPE-adversarial and AMBER show that the identified circuits are consistent across architectures, support causal intervention, and transfer selectively across hallucination types.

16.0AIAug 1
CURE: Local Uncertainty Repair for Block-Parallel Speculative Decoding

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng, Fangxin Liu et al.

Speculative decoding mitigates the latency of sequential generation in autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) by interleaving draft generation with target verification. However, existing parallel drafting backends often suffer from rapid accuracy degradation over long horizons, leading to high rejection rates during verification and suboptimal wall-clock speedups. We observe that drafting errors are not uniformly distributed but typically stem from localized high-uncertainty tokens that destabilize downstream generation trajectories. Motivated by this token error pattern, we propose CURE, a budget-aware dynamic repair tree designed to repair errors at uncertainty focal points without incurring prohibitive tree-verification overheads. Specifically, our method uses predictive confidence margins to dynamically locate candidate error tokens within a block-parallel draft, expands bounded repair paths only at these fragile nodes, and employs a novel repair resynchronization mechanism to realign draft states post-verification. Evaluations on code-generation benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, and LiveCodeBench-lite) and mathematical reasoning benchmark (GSM8K) demonstrate that CURE increases the average accepted length by 4.2-7.5% over parallel baselines without repair, translating to an end-to-end speedup of $2.66-3.49\times$ over target-only decoding. Furthermore, we provide a plug-and-play repair module compatible with standard parallel drafting frameworks. We also characterize the trade-off between draft compute and verification efficiency.

7.0AIApr 24
When Does LLM Self-Correction Help? A Control-Theoretic Markov Diagnostic and Verify-First Intervention

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng

Iterative self-correction is widely used in agentic LLM systems, but when repeated refinement helps versus hurts remains unclear. We frame self-correction as a cybernetic feedback loop in which the same language model serves as both controller and plant, and use a two-state Markov model over {Correct, Incorrect} to operationalize a simple deployment diagnostic: iterate only when ECR/EIR > Acc/(1 - Acc). In this view, EIR functions as a stability margin and prompting functions as lightweight controller design. Across 7 models and 3 datasets (GSM8K, MATH, StrategyQA), we find a sharp near-zero EIR threshold (<= 0.5%) separating beneficial from harmful self-correction. Only o3-mini (+3.4 pp, EIR = 0%), Claude Opus 4.6 (+0.6 pp, EIR ~ 0.2%), and o4-mini (+/-0 pp) remain non-degrading; GPT-5 degrades by -1.8 pp. A verify-first prompt ablation provides causal evidence that this threshold is actionable through prompting alone: on GPT-4o-mini it reduces EIR from 2% to 0% and turns -6.2 pp degradation into +0.2 pp (paired McNemar p < 10^-4), while producing little change on already-sub-threshold models. ASC further illustrates the stopping trade-off: it halts harmful refinement but incurs a 3.8 pp confidence-elicitation cost. Overall, the paper argues that self-correction should be treated not as a default behavior, but as a control decision governed by measurable error dynamics.

3.4CLMay 6
Paraphrase-Induced Output-Mode Collapse: When LLMs Break Character Under Semantically Equivalent Inputs

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng

When the substantive content of a request is rewritten, do large language models still answer in the format the original task asked for? We find that they often do not, even at temperature zero. On a 150-query evaluation over five compact 2025-era LLMs and four task types, we observe a systematic failure mode we call prompt-variant output-mode collapse: when a closed-form prompt asks for a bare label or a single choice token, content-preserving prompt variants can push the model into conversational prose, the requested format dissolves, and exact-match evaluation pipelines silently misjudge the result. To make this measurable, we release PARACONSIST, a 900-prompt benchmark of 150 base queries with five lexical, syntactic, and semantic-expansion prompt variants each, and a Semantic Consistency Score that decomposes prompt-variant robustness into answer consistency, sentence-BERT semantic similarity, and length stability. Under a whole-word answer-set match, only ~22% of closed-form variant responses preserve the ground-truth label inside their output, while ~78% drift away from the answer space entirely. In our pool, the dominant predictor of collapse is task structure rather than model identity, with model differentiation jointly carried by answer consistency and length stability. Robustness audits should therefore track response-mode preservation as a first-class reliability target alongside answer accuracy.