Papers › Does Playing it Safe Count as Faithfulness? Reassessing LVLM Hallucination Mitigation Methods
Does Playing it Safe Count as Faithfulness? Reassessing LVLM Hallucination Mitigation Methods
Mehrdad Fazli, Sina Mansouri, Mohit Marvania, Ziwei Zhu
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Recent inference-time hallucination mitigation methods for large vision-language models (LVLMs) report strong gains on hallucination benchmarks. However, it remains unclear whether lower hallucination scores reflect improved multimodal grounding or more conservative generation. We evaluate six mitigation methods across three LVLMs and four benchmarks, including hallucination-focused evaluation and the diverse capability benchmark MMStar. Our analysis reveals two consistent patterns. First, hallucination reduction is often coupled with reduced informativeness: methods that lower hallucination rates also reduce object recall, visual coverage, or response detailedness. Second, improvements on hallucination benchmarks do not reliably transfer to broader multimodal capabilities, with methods showing inconsistent or degraded performance on fine-grained perception and reasoning tasks. Our findings suggest that current evaluation protocols may overestimate progress by rewarding conservative generation. We argue that hallucination mitigation should be evaluated as a faithfulness--informativeness--capability trade-off rather than through hallucination scores alone.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2609.01888")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 14 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 14 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from mehrdadfazli/AssessHalVLM. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
25585704d77cafb4 · report
66415dc1dd50f555 · report
d1385353a34efe4c · report
00a02a5920968e1e · report
d7afcd3a4a3f5077 · report
15f527ec966e7806 · report
a88f6b22ab44a3b4 · report
e296f6fa41e34d55 · report
bb7b96236ae47aaf · report
0d53582061af2e49 · report
1d79e7c3ef8e210a · report
c02bc24cb1349662 · report
e566b1a3ec142edb · report
c78d44c1d163b2cc · report
f982cc77d9dc7b8f · report
69b18779ad10493b · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2609.01888, was issued in September 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections