Skip to content
← Back to explorer

When Prompts Override Vision: Prompt-Induced Hallucinations in LVLMs

Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny, Mustafa Shukor, Alasdair Newson, Matthieu Cord · Apr 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input. Prior work has attributed hallucinations in LVLMs to factors such as limitations of the vision backbone or the dominance of the language component, yet the relative importance of these factors remains unclear. To resolve this ambiguity, We propose HalluScope, a benchmark to better understand the extent to which different factors induce hallucinations. Our analysis indicates that hallucinations largely stem from excessive reliance on textual priors and background knowledge, especially information introduced through textual instructions. To mitigate hallucinations induced by textual instruction priors, we propose HalluVL-DPO, a framework for fine-tuning off-the-shelf LVLMs towards more visually grounded responses. HalluVL-DPO leverages preference optimization using a curated training dataset that we construct, guiding the model to prefer grounded responses over hallucinated ones. We demonstrate that our optimized model effectively mitigates the targeted hallucination failure mode, while preserving or improving performance on other hallucination benchmarks and visual capability evaluations. To support reproducibility and further research, we will publicly release our evaluation benchmark, preference training dataset, and code at https://pegah-kh.github.io/projects/prompts-override-vision/ .

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

Pairwise preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: Pairwise preference
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Despite impressive progress in capabilities of large vision-language models (LVLMs), these systems remain vulnerable to hallucinations, i.e., outputs that are not grounded in the visual input.
  • Prior work has attributed hallucinations in LVLMs to factors such as limitations of the vision backbone or the dominance of the language component, yet the relative importance of these factors remains unclear.
  • To resolve this ambiguity, We propose HalluScope, a benchmark to better understand the extent to which different factors induce hallucinations.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.