GeoArbiter: Verifiability-Guided Grounding for Remote-Sensing Multimodal LLMs

Xuechen Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 15 references

GeoArbiter: Verifiability-Guided Grounding for Remote-Sensing Multimodal LLMs

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Withholding image-verifiable geographic records from remote-sensing language models keeps 85% of retrieval's accuracy gain while making answers robust to wrong database entries.

desk verdict A well-controlled empirical paper showing that content-level filtering by cross-modal verifiability is a simple, effective fix for grounding RS MLLMs; the key-level map is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00877 v1 pith:NE5CS6ZY submitted 2026-08-01 cs.LG

Xuechen Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords remotesensingmultimodallargelanguagemodelretrieval-augmentedgenerationcross-modalverifiabilityOpenStreetMaphallucinationgroundingconflictrobustness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the correct way to ground a remote-sensing multimodal language model in geographic data is to give it only the facts the image cannot itself verify. Coordinate-keyed retrieval from OpenStreetMap improves four-way land-use accuracy by 12–17 points across three open models, but when a retrieved record contradicts what is plainly visible, the models side with the record and flip to a wrong answer. GeoArbiter applies a deterministic tag-level filter that removes physical-structure records (buildings, roads, runways, land cover) and keeps function and identity records (amenities, shops, offices, names). This filtering retains 84.69–87.15% of the retrieval gain, reduces hallucinations even when the judge cannot see the injected records, and is the only condition that stays robust when a fabricated record is injected. The mechanism is the content selection itself, not instruction-level prompting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the key-level verifiability map, which assigns each OpenStreetMap primary tag key a binary label according to whether the image could in principle adjudicate that attribute. Keys encoding function or identity (amenity, shop, tourism, military, office, name, and related keys) are labeled image-unverifiable and injected; keys encoding visible physical structure (building, highway, aeroway, natural, landuse) are labeled image-verifiable and withheld. Stratified injection is the deterministic subset $S^- = \{f \in R : v(\kappa(f)) = 0\}$, which keeps about 11% of retrieved features. This map converts an arbitration problem into a content-filtering problem: it requires no detector, no extra model call, and no per-image classifier, and it leaves the frozen model to answer from the image and the filtered text.

What would settle it

On a new or held-out region where image-verifiable attributes are predominantly tagged with keys the filter injects (e.g., amenity=parking, building=office), run the 1,069-item existence probe; if conflict-cell accuracy falls to the full-injection range (36.75–72.00%) rather than the 90.50–93.25% reported here, the key-level verifiability map is mis-calibrated and the central claim would not hold there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Cross-modal verifiability—whether the image can in principle confirm or refute an attribute—is the criterion that separates useful geographic retrieval from harmful retrieval. On the 28,087-image fMoW functional validation split, injecting coordinate-matched OpenStreetMap records raises land-use QA accuracy by 12.06–17.19 points across three frozen open models, but fabricated image-verifiable records (for example, a planted helipad) cause losses of 13.50–51.00 points; none of six arbitration prompts recovers the image-only baseline. GeoArbiter injects only the image-unverifiable subset of records and retains 84.69–87.15% of the full-retrieval accuracy gain, cuts claim-level hallucination by 9.58–26.34% under a source-blinded judge, and exceeds the no-knowledge conflict-cell accuracy on all three models (90.50–93.25% versus 36.75–72.00% for full injection). Robustness comes from withholding, not from reasoning: at the same record budget, keeping the image-verifiable records instead collapses conflict accuracy to 20.5–52.8%, below full injection.

Load-bearing premise

The binary key-level verifiability map—every key either fully image-verifiable or fully unverifiable—must correctly approximate the attribute-level boundary; the paper's own results show boundary cases such as a visibly present parking lot tagged as an amenity survive the filter and fool models in 83–92% of conflict cells, so if such cases dominate in other regions the aggregate benefit could reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Coordinate-keyed structured retrieval is a training-free way to supply the knowledge a remote-sensing multimodal language model lacks, adding 12.06–17.19 accuracy points on fMoW land-use QA.
The decision to expose a retrieved record should be based on whether the image can verify the disputed attribute, not on which source is usually reliable.
Instruction-level arbitration cannot replace content-level filtering: all six tested prompts leaked across attribute types and biased yes/no answers, so the policy must be compiled into the prompt content.
Full-injection retrieval can look best on clean accuracy while collapsing under fabricated records, so robustness evaluations must include conflict conditions as well as clean ones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural refinement the paper leaves untested: an attribute-level filter over tag values (e.g., keep building=office, drop amenity=parking) could recover the 12.85–15.31% of lost QA gain while maintaining conflict robustness, since the paper identifies exactly those boundary cases as the source of the loss.
Verifiability-guided content selection may transfer to other image-plus-knowledge settings, such as medical imaging or disaster response, where a database record can claim what the image cannot show; the paper only demonstrates remote-sensing benchmarks, so this is an extension.
The source-blinded hallucination result (9.58–26.34% reduction) suggests the filter's main safety benefit is conflict robustness rather than hallucination reduction per se; combining content filtering with retrieval-quality estimation might handle naturally occurring wrong records, something the paper does not test.
Because the filter is deterministic and training-free, it could be applied as a safety layer on top of any deployed remote-sensing multimodal model without retraining, adding only 4.9 ms cache assembly and 413 prompt tokens per image.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this if you work on retrieval-augmented multimodal models. The core idea is simple: when injecting OSM knowledge, expose only facts the image can't verify. The paper shows this content-level filter keeps about 85% of the QA gain while making models robust to fabricated records, and that prompt-level arbitration fails. The evaluation is genuinely careful: full fMoW validation split, paired bootstrap, budget-matched controls that separate selection from context size, modality isolation, a source-blinded judge, and human adjudication. The paper also discloses its weak spots honestly.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The key-level verifiability map is a binary approximation, and the paper itself documents two boundary failures: visible amenity=parking fools models in most conflict cells, and functional evidence under structural keys gets discarded, causing most of the retained-gain loss. There is no prevalence estimate for such boundary errors in other regions or tagging cultures, and the external BigEarthNet evaluation only reports full injection, so we can't verify that the filter preserves any gain on a task where the useful keys are the withheld ones. These are fixable in revision, and they don't overturn the central finding: on fMoW, selection by verifiability beats random and inverted selection at matched budgets, and the controlled probe isolates the mechanism.

One reproducibility gripe: the claimed code release has no URL. That should be fixed. The hallucination judge's moderate agreement is disclosed, and the authors sensibly report source-blinded numbers.

This paper deserves peer review. It's a solid, defensible empirical contribution. I'd cite it if writing about inference-time grounding for VLMs, and it's a good reading-group example of honest evaluation.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that cross-modal verifiability—whether the RS image can in principle adjudicate a retrieved attribute—should govern which OSM records are exposed to a frozen remote-sensing MLLM. GeoArbiter injects only image-unverifiable records (amenity, shop, tourism, military, office, etc.) and withholds image-verifiable physical-structure keys (building, highway, aeroway, natural, landuse). On the full fMoW functional validation split, full OSM injection raises four-way land-use QA accuracy by 12.06–17.19 points across three open MLLMs; stratified injection retains 84.69–87.15% of that gain while remaining robust under fabricated-record conflicts (90.50–93.25% vs. 36.75–72.00% for full injection). The paper further reports that six instruction-level arbitration prompts fail to enforce the policy, that budget-matched random/frequency/inverted filters retain less accuracy, and that claim-level hallucination drops under both a standard and a source-blinded judge.

Significance. The paper has several strengths: full-scale evaluation (n=28,087 per condition), paired bootstrap with location clustering, budget-matched controls, modality-isolation ablations, a controlled existence probe with human-verified ground truth, human adjudication of the judge, and released code and caches for reproducibility. The main evaluation uses external labels (fMoW functional labels, BigEarthNet land cover) that are independent of the injected OSM knowledge, and the paper explicitly avoids OSM-derived QA. If the results hold, verifiability-guided content selection is a simple, model-agnostic, training-free mechanism for grounding RS MLLMs in fallible structured knowledge, with a clear argument for why content filtering outperforms instruction-level arbitration. The direction of selection, not the reduced context, is supported by the budget-matched controls. However, the operationalization of verifiability as a binary key-level map is load-bearing and currently tested only on fMoW aggregate results.

major comments (2)

[§6.4 / Appendix D] The central claim that verifiability is the mechanism rests on the binary key-level map: all amenity/shop/tourism/military/office records are injected and all building/highway/aeroway/natural/landuse records are withheld. The paper itself documents two classes of boundary errors: visible amenity=parking survives the filter and fools models in 83–92% of parking conflict cells (§5.5), and functional evidence expressed under structural keys (hangars under aeroway, offices under building) is discarded, accounting for 12.85–15.31% of the retained-gain loss (§6.4). No prevalence estimate for such boundary cases is provided, so we cannot assess whether the aggregate benefit would persist in other OSM tagging cultures, regions, or at different scales. I request a sensitivity analysis that varies the map (e.g., moving amenity=parking to v=1, or adding building=office/industrial subtypes to v=0) and re-measures retained QA gain and conflict robustness, or at least a quantification of boundary-key prevalence in the fMoW corpus.
[§5.8 / Table F.4] The external BigEarthNet evaluation is reported only for the full-injection condition; the rag-filtered condition is absent. On land-cover QA, the discriminative keys (landuse, natural) are exactly the keys withheld by GeoArbiter, so this missing condition is the direct test of whether verifiability-guided selection generalizes beyond fMoW or simply disappears when the useful evidence is filtered out. Without it, Eq. (1) is not actually tested on the external benchmark, and the retained-gain claim may be corpus-specific. Please report the rag-filtered BigEarthNet accuracy (and if feasible the budget-matched controls) for all three models.

minor comments (6)

[§5.5 / Table 2] The caption states n=1,069 for the existence probe, but the three columns (conf, abs, pres) likely have different denominators; please report per-cell n or clarify the shared n.
[§5.2 / Appendix I] The abstract reports the source-blinded hallucination reduction (9.58–26.34%), while §5.2 first presents the standard-judge values (19.28–45.19%) and only later points to the blinded figures. Consider reporting both consistently at the first occurrence.
[Table F.4] No confidence intervals are given for the BigEarthNet results; adding paired bootstrap CIs, as in Table 1, would aid comparison with the fMoW results.
[Figure 1] The legend entry 'prior retrieval baselines' is vague; the caption or legend should list RS-RAG, GeoNames, and Wikipedia GeoSearch explicitly.
[§4] The automatic judge is a frozen Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct whose agreement with adjudicated human labels is moderate (κ=0.61); the paper discloses this as a limitation, but explicitly noting that the same judge is used across all conditions mitigates bias in paired comparisons would be useful.
[Appendix A] The reproducibility table lists 'all unparsable counts wrong' for answer parsing; the frequency of unparsable answers is not reported. Please report the parse rate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rest on independent fMoW/BigEarthNet labels; one acknowledged judge-reference leak is corrected by source-blinded reporting.

self definitional [Appendix I (source-blinded hallucination); referenced in §5.2]
"The judge in Table 1 sees the injected records in its reference, which can mark a claim SUPPORTED merely because judge and model saw the same record. Table I.1 re-runs the judge with the injected knowledge hidden (category-only reference)."

The standard-judge hallucination metric is partly self-confirming: the judge's reference includes the exact knowledge block GeoArbiter injects, so a generated claim that repeats an injected record is labeled SUPPORTED by construction. This inflates the reported no-knowledge to filtered hallucination reductions under the standard judge, and the associated 81.82-91.09% retention figure in §5.5 and §7 inherits that inflation. The paper itself identifies the mechanism and supplies the source-blinded figures (9.58-26.34%), which are used in the abstract and treated as the reported estimate; the circular version is therefore not load-bearing for the headline claim.

full rationale

The main derivation is self-contained against independent external labels. fMoW land-use QA and the BigEarthNet land-cover benchmark (Table F.4) are scored against image-derived functional and land-cover labels, not against OSM-derived QA; the paper explicitly avoids OSM-derived QA and captions to prevent circularity. The central retained-gain claim (84.69-87.15%) is computed from fMoW accuracy, not from the knowledge block defining the answer. The fabricated-record conflict probe is partly built into the filter: the fabricated records are visually distinctive, hence image-verifiable, hence withheld by the v=1 rule. However, Appendix G's budget-matched controls (random, frequency, inverted) show that selection direction, not merely context reduction, drives both QA retention and conflict robustness, so this is a controlled test of the stated mechanism rather than a reduction to the filter definition. The only genuine circularity is the standard hallucination judge, whose reference includes the injected records; Appendix I acknowledges this and the paper re-reports the headline hallucination reduction under a source-blinded judge, so the load-bearing claim is not circular. The remaining skeptical concern - that boundary errors in the key-level verifiability map (amenity=parking; functional evidence under building/aeroway) may have unmeasured prevalence and that the filtered BigEarthNet condition is absent - is a generalization and robustness risk, not a circularity of derivation. Score 2 reflects one acknowledged, non-load-bearing metric leakage rather than a circular central derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted numeric parameters; its free choices are the retrieval radius clamp, the knowledge block size, and the hand-authored verifiability map. The evaluation's validity rests on the external fMoW and BigEarthNet labels being independent of the injected OSM content (which the paper verifies) and on the LLM judge's reliability, which is moderate. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

Retrieval radius clamp bounds = clamp(r, 300, 1500) meters
Hand-chosen lower and upper bounds on the search radius around the image centroid in Section 3.2; not swept in the paper, and it determines which OSM features are candidates for injection.
Knowledge block character budget = 1,200 characters
Hand-set cap on the serialized knowledge block in Section 3.3 and Appendix D; affects how many records the model sees, and Appendix G matches record budgets across filter variants but does not sweep this cap.

assumptions (6)

ad hoc to paper Verifiability is an attribute-level property that can be read off the OSM primary key
The key-level map in Section 3.3 and Appendix D assigns every OSM key a binary verifiability label; this hand-authored classification is the mechanism that produces the results, and the paper itself documents exceptions such as amenity=parking and functional evidence under building/aeroway.
domain assumption An attribute is image-unverifiable if it is not in principle recoverable at the image's modality and scale, independent of the particular model's visual competence
Section 3.3 defines v this way; if model competence differs from the in-principle definition, the filter may inject or withhold the wrong records for a given model.
domain assumption The frozen Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct judge's claim decomposition and verdicts are a valid measure of hallucination
Section 5.6 reports 84.2% agreement with adjudicated human labels (kappa=0.61), with initial pairwise agreement 78.3% (kappa=0.39); the judge is only moderately reliable, so the hallucination-rate comparisons carry measurement noise.
domain assumption Local Geofabrik OSM extracts reproduce live OSM retrieval with negligible difference
Section 3.2 validates on 461 images with feature-count correlation 0.97 and median ratio 0.92; relations are skipped, and the paper acknowledges this approximation.
domain assumption The fMoW footprint radius plus clamp range captures the imaged facility in the retrieved OSM bounding region
Section 3.2 uses centroid-in-bbox retrieval; wrong coordinates or multi-facility images could bind the wrong knowledge, though the coordinate-matched controls in Appendix H show cross-modal binding is required.
standard math Paired bootstrap inference with location clustering is a valid significance test for the comparisons
Section 4 describes paired bootstrap with 10k resamples, seed 0, clustered by category_LOC; this is standard methodology for paired accuracy differences.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GeoArbiter: Verifiability-Guided Grounding for Remote-Sensing Multimodal LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NE5CS6ZY

@misc{pith2026260800877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GeoArbiter: Verifiability-Guided Grounding for Remote-Sensing Multimodal LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NE5CS6ZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00877}
}

read the original abstract

Remote-sensing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often assert facts that imagery cannot establish, such as a facility's identity or function. Coordinate-keyed geographic retrieval can supply this missing knowledge, improving fMoW land-use accuracy by 12.06--17.19 points across three open MLLMs. However, retrieved records can also contradict visible evidence, and we find that models frequently follow the records even when the image is decisive. We argue that source trust should therefore depend on \emph{cross-modal verifiability}: geographic records are most useful for attributes the image cannot verify and most dangerous when they dispute visually verifiable attributes. We introduce GeoArbiter, a training-free pipeline that operationalizes this principle by injecting only image-unverifiable geographic facts. Unlike arbitration prompts, which leak across attribute types and bias yes/no responses, content-level filtering preserves 84.69--87.15\% of the full-retrieval accuracy gain, reduces claim-level hallucination by 9.58--26.34\% under a source-blinded judge, and improves robustness to conflicting records across all three models. These results identify verifiability-guided content selection as a simple, effective mechanism for grounding remote-sensing MLLMs in fallible geographic knowledge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00877 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** GeoArbiter preserves accuracy and robustness. Full OSM injection improves land-use QA but becomes brittle to a wrong record; verifiabilitystratified injection remains in the top-right across all three MLLMs. 2023; Yin et al., 2023). They persist across RS model families (Zhou et al., 2026; Liu et al., 2026) and undermine applications in which an incorrect facility identity can be more costly than a missed object. … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** GeoArbiter pipeline. Image coordinates retrieve nearby OSM features, which may be stale or incomplete. A deterministic verifiability filter withholds physical-structure keys that the image can check (red) and textualizes image-unverifiable functional records (blue) into a knowledge block. The frozen MLLM answers from the image, question, and filtered knowledge. etzow et al., 2026). Focus-on-vision prompting is often… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Injection helps most on image-unverifiable claims. Claim-level hallucination rates over 3,000 Qwen2.5-VL descriptions before retrieval (hollow) and after full OSM injection (filled). Arrows report relative reductions: function and name claims show the largest absolute gains, while visually verifiable context starts near the floor. UNVERIFIABLE share also fell from 51.76% to 32.71%, indicating more checkable rather t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Three cases (unedited Qwen2.5-VL-7B outputs). a, Function is invisible from orbit: the model guesses stadium; a retrieved police record (‘Guardia Civil’) settles it, and stratified injection keeps that record. b, Existence is visible: a planted helipad record flips the…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

If the database records conflict with what you see in the image, trust the im- age

Image-first.“If the database records conflict with what you see in the image, trust the im- age.”

work page
[2]

Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny, et al

Benchmarking multimodal knowledge con- flict for large multimodal models.Preprint, arXiv:2505.19509. Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny, et al. 2026. When prompts override vision: Prompt-induced hallucinations in lvlms.Preprint, arXiv:2604.21911. Alexandre Lacoste, Nils Lehmann, Pau Rodriguez, et al

arXiv 2026
[3]

whether a building is a school or an office, place names), trust the database records.”

Stratified (object-keyed).“If the database records conflict with what you see, decide by the type of information: for physically visible things (buildings, roads, water, runways), trust the image; for functions and names that cannot be verified visually (e.g. whether a building is a school or an office, place names), trust the database records.”

work page
[4]

Stratified, paraphrase 1.“When sources dis- agree, apply this rule: believe the image for physically observable features such as build- ings, roads, water bodies and runways; believe the database for attributes the image cannot verify, such as a building’s function or a place name.”

work page
[5]

Preprint, arXiv:2507.13868

When seeing overrides knowing: Disentan- gling knowledge conflicts in vision-language models. Preprint, arXiv:2507.13868. ACL 2026. Jie Ouyang et al. 2025. Hoh: A dynamic benchmark for evaluating the impact of outdated information on retrieval-augmented generation. InACL. Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen2.5-vl technical report. Preprint, arXiv:2502.13923. David F. R...

arXiv 2026
[6]

Ge- ographic database records for this image’s location (may be outdated or incomplete): {knowledge}

Question-keyed.“If the database records con- flict with what you see, decide by what is in dispute: if the question is whether something exists or how it is laid out (a runway, a pool, a building being there), trust the image; if the question is what a facility is for or what it is called (school vs office, place names), trust the database records.” C Pro...

work page arXiv
[7]

Yiming Xiao, Kai Yin, and Ali Mostafavi

Remote sensing retrieval-augmented gener- ation: Bridging remote sensing imagery and com- prehensive knowledge with a multi-modal dataset and retrieval-augmented generation model.Preprint, arXiv:2504.04988. Yiming Xiao, Kai Yin, and Ali Mostafavi. 2026. Crisisense-rag: Crisis sensing multimodal retrieval- augmented generation for rapid disaster impact as-...

arXiv 2026
[8]

Preprint, arXiv:2401.15884

Corrective retrieval augmented generation. Preprint, arXiv:2401.15884. Shukang Yin, Chaoyou Fu, Sirui Zhao, et al

arXiv

Show all 15 references

[9]

Dazhou Yu, Riyang Bao, Ruiyu Ning, et al

Woodpecker: Hallucination correction for multimodal large language models.Preprint, arXiv:2310.16045. Dazhou Yu, Riyang Bao, Ruiyu Ning, et al. 2025. Spatial-rag: Spatial retrieval augmented genera- tion for real-world geospatial reasoning questions. Preprint, arXiv:2502.18470...

2025 arXiv
[11]

If the database records con- flict with what you see in the image, trust the database records

Database-first.“If the database records con- flict with what you see in the image, trust the database records.”
[14]

Stratified, paraphrase 2.“Resolve conflicts by information type: visual evidence wins for anything directly observable (structures, roads, water, runways); database records win for visually unverifiable facts (facility func- tions, names).”
[2023]

InNeurIPS Datasets and Bench- marks

Geo-bench: Toward foundation models for earth monitoring. InNeurIPS Datasets and Bench- marks. Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, et al. 2024. Llava- onevision: Easy visual task transfer.Preprint, arXiv:2408.03326. Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and J...

2024 arXiv
[2024]

ACL 2025

Insight over sight: Exploring the vision- knowledge conflicts in multimodal llms.Preprint, arXiv:2410.08145. ACL 2025. Yi Liu, Jing Zhang, Di Wang, et al. 2026. Seeing clearly without training: Mitigating hallucinations in multimodal llms for remote sensing.Preprint, arXiv:260...

2025 arXiv
[2025]

NeurIPS 2025

Geolink: Empowering remote sensing foun- dation model with openstreetmap data.Preprint, arXiv:2509.26016. NeurIPS 2025. Peter Carragher, Nikitha Rao, Abhinand Jha, et al. 2025. Segsub: Evaluating robustness to knowledge con- flicts and hallucinations in vision-language models....

2025
[2026]

SPIE DCS ATR XXXVI 2026

Sar-rag: Atr visual question answering by semantic search, retrieval, and mllm genera- tion.Preprint, arXiv:2602.04712. SPIE DCS ATR XXXVI 2026. Weijia Shi, Xiaochuang Han, Mike Lewis, Yulia Tsvetkov, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Scott Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Trusting your evidence: Hallu...

2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

If the database records conflict with what you see in the image, trust the im- age

Image-first.“If the database records conflict with what you see in the image, trust the im- age.”

work page

[2] [2]

Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny, et al

Benchmarking multimodal knowledge con- flict for large multimodal models.Preprint, arXiv:2505.19509. Pegah Khayatan, Jayneel Parekh, Arnaud Dapogny, et al. 2026. When prompts override vision: Prompt-induced hallucinations in lvlms.Preprint, arXiv:2604.21911. Alexandre Lacoste, Nils Lehmann, Pau Rodriguez, et al

arXiv 2026

[3] [3]

whether a building is a school or an office, place names), trust the database records.”

Stratified (object-keyed).“If the database records conflict with what you see, decide by the type of information: for physically visible things (buildings, roads, water, runways), trust the image; for functions and names that cannot be verified visually (e.g. whether a building is a school or an office, place names), trust the database records.”

work page

[4] [4]

Stratified, paraphrase 1.“When sources dis- agree, apply this rule: believe the image for physically observable features such as build- ings, roads, water bodies and runways; believe the database for attributes the image cannot verify, such as a building’s function or a place name.”

work page

[5] [5]

Preprint, arXiv:2507.13868

When seeing overrides knowing: Disentan- gling knowledge conflicts in vision-language models. Preprint, arXiv:2507.13868. ACL 2026. Jie Ouyang et al. 2025. Hoh: A dynamic benchmark for evaluating the impact of outdated information on retrieval-augmented generation. InACL. Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen2.5-vl technical report. Preprint, arXiv:2502.13923. David F. R...

arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

Ge- ographic database records for this image’s location (may be outdated or incomplete): {knowledge}

Question-keyed.“If the database records con- flict with what you see, decide by what is in dispute: if the question is whether something exists or how it is laid out (a runway, a pool, a building being there), trust the image; if the question is what a facility is for or what it is called (school vs office, place names), trust the database records.” C Pro...

work page arXiv

[7] [7]

Yiming Xiao, Kai Yin, and Ali Mostafavi

Remote sensing retrieval-augmented gener- ation: Bridging remote sensing imagery and com- prehensive knowledge with a multi-modal dataset and retrieval-augmented generation model.Preprint, arXiv:2504.04988. Yiming Xiao, Kai Yin, and Ali Mostafavi. 2026. Crisisense-rag: Crisis sensing multimodal retrieval- augmented generation for rapid disaster impact as-...

arXiv 2026

[8] [8]

Preprint, arXiv:2401.15884

Corrective retrieval augmented generation. Preprint, arXiv:2401.15884. Shukang Yin, Chaoyou Fu, Sirui Zhao, et al

arXiv