Cited by 427Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis

Object Hallucination in Image Captioning

Open access
Rohrbach, Anna, Hendricks, Lisa Anne, Burns, Kaylee, Darrell, Trevor, Saenko, Kate·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Despite continuously improving performance, contemporary image captioning models are prone to "hallucinating" objects that are not actually in a scene.One problem is that standard metrics only measure similarity to ground truth captions and may not fully capture image relevance.In this work, we propose a new image relevance metric to evaluate current models with veridical visual labels and assess their rate of object hallucination.We analyze how captioning model architectures and learning objectives contribute to object hallucination, explore when hallucination is likely due to image misclassification or language priors, and assess how well current sentence metrics capture object hallucination.We investigate these questions on the standard image captioning benchmark, MSCOCO, using a diverse set of models.Our analysis yields several interesting findings, including that models which score best on standard sentence metrics do not always have lower hallucination and that models which hallucinate more tend to make errors driven by language priors. * Denotes equal contribution.NBT: A woman talking on a cell phone while sitting on a bench.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/d18-1437

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deep learning based NLG generation is prone to hallucinate unintended text, which degrades system performance and fails to meet user expectations in many real-world scenarios.

    “However, it is also apparent that deep learning based generation is prone to hallucinate unintended text, which degrades the system performance and fails to meet user expectations in many real-world scenarios.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [222]

    The Introduction and §3.2 report that image-captioning models hallucinate objects, while §3.4 says these errors impair sentence quality. The Introduction also notes that incorrect captions are less preferable to some users. The paper does not establish the broader claim about deep-learning-based generation or user expectations across many real-world scenarios; page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Large language model (LLM) systems often hallucinate false outputs and unsubstantiated answers.

    “Large language model (LLM) systems, such as ChatGPT1 or Gemini2, can show impressive reasoning and question-answering capabilities but often ‘hallucinate’ false outputs and unsubstantiated answers3,4.”

    From Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy (2024) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction describes image-captioning models generating objects absent from an image, and Section 3.2 reports hallucinated objects in 7.4%–17.7% of tested captions. This supports the general point that generated outputs can be false, but the paper does not establish how often LLM systems such as ChatGPT or Gemini produce unsubstantiated answers. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is another contributor of hallucinations: training and modeling choices of neural models.

    “This is because there is another contributor of hallucinations - training and modeling choices of neural models [121, 215, 222, 263].”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [222]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Andrej Karpathy and Li Fei-Fei. 2015. Deep visual- semantic alignments for generating image descrip- tions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3128-3137.
  2. Mert Kilickaya, Aykut Erdem, Nazli Ikizler-Cinbis, and Erkut Erdem. 2016. Re-evaluating automatic metrics for image captioning. In European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Anna Rohrbach, Makarand Tapaswi, Atousa Torabi, Tegan Maharaj, Marcus Rohrbach, Sanja Fi- dler Christopher Pal, and Bernt Schiele. 2017a. The Joint Video and Language Understand- ing Workshop: MovieQA and The Large Scale Movie Description Challenge (LSMDC). https://sites.google.com/site/ describingmovies/lsmdc-2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rohrbach, A., Hendricks, L. A., Burns, K., Darrell, T., & Saenko, K.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2018
Pages
4035-4045
OpenAlex
W2892087592
Cited by
420
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 103 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Keywords
object hallucination, image captioning, hallucination evaluation, language priors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review