Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
60 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
8 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Do More Details Always Introduce More Hallucinations in LVLM-based Image Captioning? (2406.12663v1)

Published 18 Jun 2024 in cs.CV and cs.AI

Abstract: Large Vision-LLMs (LVLMs) excel in integrating visual and linguistic contexts to produce detailed content, facilitating applications such as image captioning. However, using LVLMs to generate descriptions often faces the challenge of object hallucination (OH), where the output text misrepresents actual objects in the input image. While previous studies attribute the occurrence of OH to the inclusion of more details, our study finds technical flaws in existing metrics, leading to unreliable evaluations of models and conclusions about OH. This has sparked a debate on the question: Do more details always introduce more hallucinations in LVLM-based image captioning? In this paper, we address this debate by proposing a novel decoding strategy, Differentiated Beam Decoding (DBD), along with a reliable new set of evaluation metrics: CLIP-Precision, CLIP-Recall, and CLIP-F1. DBD decodes the wealth of information hidden in visual input into distinct language representations called unit facts in parallel. This decoding is achieved via a well-designed differential score that guides the parallel search and candidate screening. The selected unit facts are then aggregated to generate the final caption. Our proposed metrics evaluate the comprehensiveness and accuracy of image captions by comparing the embedding groups of ground-truth image regions and generated text partitions. Extensive experiments on the Visual Genome dataset validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating that it produces detailed descriptions while maintaining low hallucination levels.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Mingqian Feng (14 papers)
  2. Yunlong Tang (32 papers)
  3. Zeliang Zhang (34 papers)
  4. Chenliang Xu (114 papers)
Citations (1)