PreprintCited by 468Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsHallucinations in medical conditionsTopic Modeling

Hallucination of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Survey

Open access
Bai, Zechen, Wang, Pichao, Xiao, Tianjun, He, Tong, Han, Zongbo, Zhang, Zheng, Shou, Mike Zheng·2024·arXiv

Abstract

This survey presents a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of hallucination in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), also known as Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), which have demonstrated significant advancements and remarkable abilities in multimodal tasks. Despite these promising developments, MLLMs often generate outputs that are inconsistent with the visual content, a challenge known as hallucination, which poses substantial obstacles to their practical deployment and raises concerns regarding their reliability in real-world applications. This problem has attracted increasing attention, prompting efforts to detect and mitigate such inaccuracies. We review recent advances in identifying, evaluating, and mitigating these hallucinations, offering a detailed overview of the underlying causes, evaluation benchmarks, metrics, and strategies developed to address this issue. Additionally, we analyze the current challenges and limitations, formulating open questions that delineate potential pathways for future research. By drawing the granular classification and landscapes of hallucination causes, evaluation benchmarks, and mitigation methods, this survey aims to deepen the understanding of hallucinations in MLLMs and inspire further advancements in the field. Through our thorough and in-depth review, we contribute to the ongoing dialogue on enhancing the robustness and reliability of MLLMs, providing valuable insights and resources for researchers and practitioners alike. Resources are available at: https://github.com/showlab/Awesome-MLLM-Hallucination.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.18930

Cites

154 of 154 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • LLMs such as ChatGPT generate citations that appear syntactically correct and contextually appropriate, yet do not correspond to any real or retrievable publication.

    “Recent investigations have increasingly drawn attention to the phenomenon of 'hallucinated references,' wherein LLMs such as ChatGPT generate citations that appear syntactically correct and contextually appropriate, yet do not correspond to any real or retrievable publication.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

40 of the 194 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bai, Z., Wang, P., Xiao, T., He, T., Han, Z., Zhang, Z., & Shou, M. Z.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6922346929
Cited by
38
References
194
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Research Foundation Singapore
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
hallucinations, multimodal large language models, hallucination mitigation, hallucination detection

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