Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models via DPO: On-Policy Data Hold the Key

About

Hallucination remains a major challenge for Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) has gained increasing attention as a simple solution to hallucination issues. It directly learns from constructed preference pairs that reflect the severity of hallucinations in responses to the same prompt and image. Nonetheless, different data construction methods in existing works bring notable performance variations. We identify a crucial factor here: outcomes are largely contingent on whether the constructed data aligns on-policy w.r.t the initial (reference) policy of DPO. Theoretical analysis suggests that learning from off-policy data is impeded by the presence of KL-divergence between the updated policy and the reference policy. From the perspective of dataset distribution, we systematically summarize the inherent flaws in existing algorithms that employ DPO to address hallucination issues. To alleviate the problems, we propose On-Policy Alignment (OPA)-DPO framework, which uniquely leverages expert feedback to correct hallucinated responses and aligns both the original and expert-revised responses in an on-policy manner. Notably, with only 4.8k data, OPA-DPO achieves an additional reduction in the hallucination rate of LLaVA-1.5-7B: 13.26% on the AMBER benchmark and 5.39% on the Object-Hal benchmark, compared to the previous SOTA algorithm trained with 16k samples. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/zhyang2226/OPA-DPO.

Zhihe Yang, Xufang Luo, Dongqi Han, Yunjian Xu, Dongsheng Li• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Object Hallucination EvaluationPOPE--
2019
Object HallucinationPOPE Popular
F1 Score84.49
372
Object HallucinationPOPE Adversarial
Accuracy85.3
353
Hallucination EvaluationMMHal-Bench
MMHal Score2.83
306
Hallucination EvaluationAMBER
CHAIR2.8
222
Object Hallucination EvaluationPOPE (Random)
Accuracy87.33
152
Multimodal Hallucination EvaluationMMHal-Bench
Average Score3.35
129
Hallucination EvaluationObject-HalBench
CHAIR Score (s)13
78
Hallucination EvaluationAMBER Generative Task
Coverage47.9
26
Object Hallucination EvaluationObject HalBench (test)
CHAIRS Score40
24
Showing 10 of 21 rows

Other info

Code

Follow for update