Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Mitigating Hallucination in Large Multi-Modal Models via Robust Instruction Tuning

About

Despite the promising progress in multi-modal tasks, current large multi-modal models (LMMs) are prone to hallucinating inconsistent descriptions with respect to the associated image and human instructions. This paper addresses this issue by introducing the first large and diverse visual instruction tuning dataset, named Large-scale Robust Visual (LRV)-Instruction. Our dataset comprises 400k visual instructions generated by GPT4, covering 16 vision-and-language tasks with open-ended instructions and answers. Unlike existing studies that primarily focus on positive instruction samples, we design LRV-Instruction to include both positive and negative instructions for more robust visual instruction tuning. Our negative instructions are designed at three semantic levels: (i) Nonexistent Object Manipulation, (ii) Existent Object Manipulation and (iii) Knowledge Manipulation. To efficiently measure the hallucination generated by LMMs, we propose GPT4-Assisted Visual Instruction Evaluation (GAVIE), a stable approach to evaluate visual instruction tuning like human experts. GAVIE does not require human-annotated groundtruth answers and can adapt to diverse instruction formats. We conduct comprehensive experiments to investigate the hallucination of LMMs. Our results demonstrate existing LMMs exhibit significant hallucinations when presented with our negative instructions, particularly Existent Object and Knowledge Manipulation instructions. Moreover, we successfully mitigate hallucination by finetuning MiniGPT4 and mPLUG-Owl on LRV-Instruction while improving performance on several public datasets compared to state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we observed that a balanced ratio of positive and negative instances in the training data leads to a more robust model. Code and data are available at https://github.com/FuxiaoLiu/LRV-Instruction.

Fuxiao Liu, Kevin Lin, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang, Yaser Yacoob, Lijuan Wang• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Object HallucinationPOPE (Random)
F1 Score88
200
Object HallucinationPOPE Adversarial
Accuracy74
196
Object HallucinationPOPE Popular
F1 Score79
188
Visual Question AnsweringGQA (test)
Accuracy64
119
Hallucination EvaluationHallusionBench--
93
Hallucination EvaluationAMBER--
71
Hallucination assessmentObject-HalBench
Mention Hallucination Rate22.3
39
Multimodal ConversationLLaVA-Bench--
21
Visual Hallucination EvaluationHallusionBench
Accuracy (Q)8.79
19
Object Hallucination EvaluationMME Existence (test)
Accuracy83.33
18
Showing 10 of 17 rows

Other info

Code

Follow for update